Talk:List of Adolf Hitler's personal staff/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs) 10:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Review comments by MisterBee1966

I will start reviewing the article shortly. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:49, 26 February 2015 (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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I wonder if this article is not in breach of Wikipedia:Good article criteria#What cannot be a good article?. It states that "Stand-alone lists, portals, sounds, and images: these items should be nominated for featured list, featured portal, featured sounds, and featured picture status, respectively." To me, this article in its current state, is actually a "List of Adolf Hitler's adjutants". In order for it to be an article, I would like to see more verbiage on roles, obligations and functions associated to the role of an adjutant. The article/list in its current form presents an abstract of biographies. I will ask for a second opinion. It certainly seems like a list to me. This ought to go to WP:FLC instead (and I'd recommend a trip to WP:MHACR first. Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC) I agree - there is no organised overview; it is a list (a very good quality one, but a list nonetheless). Simon Burchell (talk) 12:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
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.
	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).	I have concerns regarding the use of "Scherzer, Veit (2007). The Holders of the Knight's Cross 1939-45. ISBN 978-3-938845-17-2." The article currently claimes that information in the "Gerhard Engel" section was taken from pages 290–295. I own this book with the same ISBN but different title, I can say that in my version of the book, Engel is mentioned on page 294 only. The book does not go into the level of detail claimed to be taken from pages 290–295. Maybe the wrong Scherzer book is listed in the "sources" section?
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.	If this article is NOT a list: the files File:Nazi Party and SS member Wilhelm Brückner in 1924.jpg, File:Albert Bormann.jpg, File:Karl-Jesco von Puttkamer.jpg, File:Fritz Darges 5ss.jpg and File:Willy Johannmeyer.jpg require rational why the use of this non-free media is okay to use on this article. If this article is a list: all non-free media has to be removed. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	I am failing the article on the grounds of Wikipedia:Good article criteria#What cannot be a good article?. This article in its current state is a Stand-alone list. Cheers. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)