Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: ColonelHenry (talk · contribs) 16:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to reviewing this article. On first pass, it looks very informative and well-prepared. I'll begin with some initial comments sometime within the next 24-36 hours after a few readings and confirming some of the citations, etc. Thanks! --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

General comments[edit]

  • I cannot find any issues (copyediting, revision, fixing, etc.) that need addressing. This article was well-prepared before the GAN.

Image review[edit]

  • File:Stars & Stripes & Hitler Dead2.jpg - OK - PD as USgovt product.
  • File:Battle of Berlin 1945-a.png - OK - properly tagged user-produced image, cc3.0 and others.
  • File:Reichskanzlei-Fuehrerbunker.png - OK - properly tagged user-produced image, cc3.0.
  • File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F051673-0059, Adolf Hitler und Eva Braun auf dem Berghof.jpg - OK - German Federal Archive (GFA)
  • File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-V04744, Berlin, Garten der zerstörte Reichskanzlei.jpg - OK - GFA
  • File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-M1204-319, Berlin, Reichskanzlei, gesprengter Führerbunker.jpg - OK - GFA
  • File:Hitlerwithoumoustache0002.jpg - OK - but improperly tagged. should be PD as a USgovt product.
  • File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1978-086-03, Joseph Goebbels mit Familie.jpg - OK - GFA
  • File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-1983-0331-500, Hermann Göring und Adolf Hitler bei Truppenbesuch.jpg - OK - GFA
  • File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1982-044-11, Heinz Linge.jpg - OK - GFA
  • File:Churchill sits on bunker-chair.jpg - OK - PD as UK govt product

Review and criteria analysis[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


This is a tough subject to work on largely because of the emotional response and controversy around the subject. However, the nominator and fellow editors who have worked on this article should be commended for a professional collaboration that has produced an exceptionally informative, objective, and compelling article.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    Article is exceptionally well-written, prose is clear and concise, no grammar or spelling errors, and no indication of any copyright violations/plagiarism.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Article sufficiently complies with the MOS guidelines mentioned in Criteria 1b.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    Article has an appropriate reference section compliant with MOS and citation guidlines.
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    Article employs appropriate citations pursuant to WP:V and WP:RS.
    C. No original research:
    There is no evidence or indication of original research.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Article's scope and coverage sufficiently addresses the major aspects concerning the subject.
    B. Focused:
    Article's content is focused and complies with WP:SUMMARY and WP:LENGTH
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Article's editors have made a great effort to present the information objectively and without bias.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Because this is an article about a controversial figure, I am willing to give significant latitude regarding stability. However, I am surprised that for an article about a controversial historical figure like Hitler, this article is not often vandalized or the subject of editwarring or serious content disputes. The article's contributors have made laudable use of the talk page to discuss difference on presentation, and the occasional interloper who happens to try to vandalize or insert fringe theories or discussion are pointed to consensus. I do not see any evidence of edit-warring in the last year of editing.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    All images tagged with fair use rationales, although one is using an incorrect tag (easily corrected)
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    All images are relevant to the article subject and have appropriate captions under WP:CAPTION
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Good work on an excellent article.