Talk:Mikhail Petrov (general)
(Redirected from Talk:Mikhail Petrovich Petrov (general))
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga in topic GA Review
![]() | Mikhail Petrov (general) is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | Mikhail Petrov (general) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article |
![]() | This article is rated A-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- 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
edit- 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
edit- 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
edit- 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
edit- 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)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)