Talk:Operation Gisela/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs) 06:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Section "German claims" You use a mix of the German word Abschuß and victory. I would recommend to use the English variant only. Also note is Abschuß (singular) and Abschüsse (plural). "Bomber Command warned all of their Squadrons", I believe squadrons is not a proper noun in this context "Station Commanders" likewise check for over-linking, I found Geschwaderkommodore, Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer some German units are in italics some are not, example Nachtjagdgeschwader 1 is not while Nachtjagdgeschwader 2 is. None of the units in the infobox are in italics. 1940–1941 should be 1940–41 according to MOS date
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I wonder if the color coding on the table can be limited to one of the columns only. I find it very difficult to read the text in the red cells. I believe the tables require column and row scope to be WP:Access compliant
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	I believe it is best practice to provide a translation for none English sources.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	no comment
	2c. it contains no original research.	no comment
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	no comment
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	no comment
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	no comment
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	no comment
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Luftwaffeintrudermap1940to1941.jpg what is the source of this image? I assume that the boundaries have been published in a book?
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	no comment
	7. Overall assessment.

• @Dapi89:@MisterBee1966: What is the status of this review? It has been over a month since this was touched. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
• I have addressed them all view the article. Just got to complete the colour-coding issue and I think that will be it. Dapi89 (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I am currently on vacation and can only edit from a mobile device. I approve the nomination. May I ask someone to close the nomination on my behalf? If not, I will follow up in two weeks. Sorry for the delay MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    • On behalf of User:MisterBee1966 I'm happy to promote this article to Good Article status. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks all. Dapi89 (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)