Talk:Mikhail Petrov (general)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mikhail Petrovich Petrov (general)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 13:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Well constructed article. Will comeback with suggestions within a day or two. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience Kges1901. Owing to my educational constraints I was unable to review the article. I will free my 13 September, and will start the review soon from then. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Section 1

• Sentence 2; Consider rewording it as After graduating from the fourth grade, he worked as a metalworker at the Putilov Plant and also as a chauffeur.
• Sentence 3; It must be "The Bolsheviks" not just "Bolsheviks".

• Both fixed. Kges1901 (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Section 2

• Last sentence; "The 17th Mechanized Corps was a cadre-strength formation equipped with only 36 tanks" is unnecessary, because the size of the corps has nothing to do with the subject.

• I think that it is relevant to note that the corps was not at full strength, because it provides context for what happened after Operation Barbarossa. Kges1901 (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Section 3

• Why years were not mentioned with any of the dates? Please correct this.

• MOS:DATEVAR says that years can be omitted if there is no risk of ambiguity. I believe I have made it clear that the events described in the WWII section all happened in 1941. Kges1901 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• The latter sentences in the first para are so confusing. Please revise them

• Sentences revised. Kges1901 (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

These are my initial suggestions. Once these are addressed, I will suggest more if needed. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

16 September 2016

• Para 2; sentence 6; It is said the army HQ was visited by some journalist, please make it clear whether it was HQ of the whole Red Army or of 50th Army.
• Para; last sentence; Consider replacing "incorrectly" with "mistakenly".

• Add a subsection with title "Death" as section 3.1 as the complete para is about it.
• Para 3; Wiki-link "gangrene" at it's first use (article is available, Gangrene).

Lead

• Consider splitting the lead into two paras.

Almost done to go. Once these are addressed, I shall pass the article. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Changes done. Kges1901 (talk) 07:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)