Talk:Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: —ems24 19:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article, but I've been very busy recently so it might be a day or two before the review is finished. If you see an abundance of neutral signs (||), that probably means that I haven't gotten to that category of reviewing yet. —ems24 19:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Prose could read smoother, and there are a few places where copy editing would come in handy. A few examples from the intro are below, but there are more. Like I said, a quick read through and a copy edit would probably fix most of these errors and make the prose read more smoothly.

• "Commander in Chief of the Luftwaffe (German: Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe) ; in defiance of the Versailles Treaty." There should not be a space before the semicolon.
• "...military air force. Yet pilots were secretly trained for military aviation" The 'yet' here is abrupt; a smoother transition would be better.
• "... specially consolidated Intervention Groups(German: Einsatzgruppen)." Should 'Intervention Groups' be capitalized? I may very well be wrong, but if I'm not that needs to be changed. And, of course, a space before the parentheses.

• Sometimes the English term is given first and others the German is first. Decide on one or the other and stick with it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I was in the middle of converting to German in parenthesis with tag. Gave up waiting on GoCE. They were probably spooked by the thread we had. Anyway will finish the conversion and also see if MILHIST Copy Ed place is helpful. '  Perseus 71 ^talk 23:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done. At least what best I could do. (Not a native English speaker) I have open requests for Copy Ed on MILHIST as well as Guild of Copy Ed, with no luck so far '  Perseus 71 ^talk 03:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have started copy edits and will finish sometime tomorrow. Diannaa ^TALK 05:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Diannaa ^TALK 20:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

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

• The first thing I noticed when I looked at the article was the lack of a bolded subject in the lead section. Though this would be acceptable in articles such as History of the United States, this article needs to have its title in the first sentence, per WP:MOSBEGIN. Something along the lines of "The Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933-1945) was..." Also, the intro, especially the first few sentences, could better summarize the rest of the article.

 Done'  Perseus 71 ^talk 02:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• One thing I noticed about the list of air units: for some sections, all the items are linked and the ones which do not have a separate page show up in red. In others, only the items which have articles are linked. You would probably want to have consistency with this, by either linking everything or removing the red links. I would recommend linking everything, as it encourages others to create new articles on the air units.

 Done '  Perseus 71 ^talk 02:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

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

   B. 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):

   References look good for the most part. Some paragraphs could use a few more refs from different sources just for accuracy, though this isn't pressing.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

2. 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):

   It's a long article, and covers many distinct topics, so the focus of it could be questioned. However, I think it does a good job of providing the main idea of the off topic sections and focusing on the more relevent parts.

3. Is it neutral?

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

4. Is it stable?

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

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

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

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

   There are 5 images packed into the section "Aircraft Camouflage Schemes and Identification Markings". None of the other sections have nearly the same amount of images, and this may be aesthetically displeasing to some readers, especially if they are quickly skimming the article. If possible, the article could benefit from having a few images removed or relocated from the aforementioned section, or having more images placed into sections that lack them. Also, consider placing images on the left side of the page. This isn't critical for a GA of course, but it's just a detail that could be improved.

 Done Number of images reduced. '  Perseus 71 ^talk 02:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I'll put this on hold for a week to see if the above issues are addressed, most notably the need of copy editing. It's an interesting read, and I'd like to see it become a GA. —ems24 02:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Pass I didn't have time to read the entire article again, but from the diffs it looks like most of the issues have been fixed. I'll make it a GA. Great job on this article. —ems24 20:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)