Jump to content

Talk:Mikhail Petrov (general)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 13:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well constructed article. Will comeback with suggestions within a day or two. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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".

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.

Section 3

[edit]
  • Why years were not mentioned with any of the dates? Please correct this.
  • The latter sentences in the first para are so confusing. Please revise them
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]