Talk:Johann Dietrich von Hülsen/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 05:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Lead and infobox;
  • Johann Dietrich von Hülsen (born 1 June 1693 in Babaziens, died 29 May 1767 in Berlin); just the date range is enough, no need of geographical details fixed
  • general lieutenant? I think it is to be "lieutenant general" yes (In English)
  • In the infobox the rank is mentioned as general. But as far as I can see per the prose, the highest rank attained by him was "lieutenant general" done
• Section 1;
  • (1. Philipp von Weyherr, 2. Christoph Rudolf von Schliewitz); This is not necessary, out of context moved to note
• Section 2;
  • Then rank of Otto Magnus von Doenhoff? done
  • Modern equivalent of Fahnrich in braces done
  • Link all the military ranks throughout the article on the first mention—second lieutenant, first lieutenant, major etc. done
  • Then rank of Erhard Ernst von Roeder? done
  • promoted to Captain; no need to initial capitals just "captain" done
• Section 2.1;
  • Then rank of Leopold I of Anhalt-Dessau? done
  • Then rank of Asmus Ehrenreich von Bredow? done
  • Halberstadt is over-linked
• Section 2.2;
  • Then rank of Joachim Christian von Tresckow? done
  • Then rank of Hans Joachim von Zieten? done
• Section 3; all good
• 5.7% confidence, violation unlikely.

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• thank you! All done! auntieruth (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Kindly sign the comment. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• • • all done. auntieruth (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2017 (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) 05:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)