Talk:Kurt Welter/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

It is reasonably well written:
Not Yet

The lead section should more adequately summarize the entire article. A few more sentences on his life and accomplishments are neccesary to do this. done
Details of the first 20 years of his life are absent from the article completely, this is over half of his life. Details of his early life are important. Where did he go to school? Where did he live? What did his parents do? seems impossible I could not find any personal background.
Details of which units he fought with during the war are covered well, but a sense of where he was for the war is important. Where were these formations based at?
The awards section should probably be put in a paragraph form or table of some kind. not done the style I used is conform with a number of A-class and at least one featured article
I noticed several grammar errors and typos in the article. I recommend that the article recieve a light or moderate copy-edit to conform it to Wikipedia style.

It is factually accurate and verifiable:
Not Yet

The article needs to be much more thoroughly cited. As I said in the other review, every number, date, or detail likely to be challenged should be cited. As you already have the sources for this information, this is just a matter of putting footnotes in the article. Articles can not be too thoroughly cited. done I believe every bit of information is cited
The accusation that he was overclaiming is a controversial one. As such, it should be sourced from more than one reference. ongoing I'm still looking for a second source

It is broad in its coverage:
Pass No problems there.
It follows the neutral point of view policy:
Pass No problems there.
It is stable:
Pass No problems there.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
Pass No problems there.
Overall:
On Hold until all issues have been resolved. I will leave this review open for longer than normal since you have indicated that you'll be out of town for a few weeks. Just let me know when you get back! -Ed!^(talk) 03:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. The article now meets the GA criteria, according to my interpretation of them. Well done. —Ed!^(talk) 03:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]