Talk:Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 13:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No disambiguation links found (no action required)
Checklinks reports no problems with external links (no action required)
There are several duplicate links in the article. They should be removed per WP:OVERLINK. Those are: German Army (German Empire), 10th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht), Grossdeutschland Division, Panzer III (x2), Gerd von Rundstedt, Paul Ludwig Ewald von Kleist, 6th Army (Wehrmacht), Stalingrad, T-34, Generaloberst (x2), Teleprinter, Breslau, Panzerfaust, Dresden, Grabenstätt.

done, except for two instances of info in the infobox. This eases reading on mobile devices MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:SURNAME full names (with rank where applicable) should be mentioned on the first instance of the name only. Afterwards, only the surname (without the rank) should be noted. I noticed this in case of Kleist, Rundstedt, Hube and Guderian, so far, but there may be more of such instances - please check for others.

done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio Detector indicates no problems with copyright related issues (no action required)
Please add a US Public Domain tag at the commons for image File:Strachwitz-Wappen2.png (other images have appropriate licenses and sourcing)

done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The final sentence of the first paragraph of the "After World War II and final years" section is not referenced. Pleae provide a reference.

done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Out of six notes, only one (5th) is referenced. Please provide references to the remaining five.

done, except for the text generated by the template {{German title}} MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the above two issues, sourcing appears to be in order. (no further action requried)
According to MOS:YEAR, year ranges such as 1902–1922 should be presented as 1902–22 (provided both years belong to the same century)

done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the most significant issues here, especially referencing. I'll have another read-through of the prose once the references are completed though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything seems to be in order now. Passing--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]