Talk:15th Tank Corps/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am going to review this article for possible GA status. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 22:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: No cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc.Shearonink (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: {{GAList/check|yes}

   See "wording" below. Shearonink (talk) 04:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   I will be honest. I do not read or understand Russian and so many of the references are beyond my understanding, but I am sure the stated references are fine. Shearonink (talk) 04:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   I ran the copyvio tool and no copy violations were found. Shearonink (talk) 04:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Vasily Koptsov is so important to the history of the Corps, it seems that his image should be added to the article. Shearonink (talk) 04:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The GA Review is on hold pending a few more read-throughs for any issues I might have missed but so far, so good. Shearonink (talk) 04:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

   After this last readthrough, I did find one minor issue in the infobox. Please fix that and I'll finish my Review. (I did just now adjust the size of Koptsov's photo to be slightly smaller so it would blend in better with the surrounding text.) Shearonink (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

   I see that's been fixed. Shearonink (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

   Please see the "one last thing" section below. Shearonink (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Everything looks good - congratulations. Shearonink (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Wording

The phrasing of this sentence is somewhat redundant - the 15th Tank Corps fought in heavy fighting - and need to be redrafted. Shearonink (talk) 04:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Done. Kges1901 (talk) 10:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Listing of names in infobox

After doing another readthrough, the names of Mikhail Petrov & Vasily Koltsov need to be either listed in a column or divided by more spaces or maybe a comma...to a reader unfamiliar with these two men, the two names will probably seem to visually read as one person. Shearonink (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Addressed.Kges1901 (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Shearonink (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

One last thing

@Kges1901: When I think I am almost done with a Review I always do a few more readthroughs to see if there's anything I have missed on previous passes though the material and after this last time I did find something... The Third Battle of Kharkov section has somewhat of an oddity in its timeline. The Battle is humming along and then in the last sentence "Koptsov himself was briefly captured on 2 March before dying of the severe wound he had received on 28 February." I think the narrative of what happened during the Battle would be improved if Koptsov's injury was introduced earlier in the paragraph. It just struck me this time... I wondered if he continued to command, if someone else received a battlefield promotion, if conditions were so chaotic that no one was available... anyway, if possible, maybe the reader should be introduced to the injury earlier. If you think this is something that doesn't need to be adjusted, then let's discuss it. Shearonink (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Kges1901 (talk) 11:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)