Talk:Ouvrage La Ferté/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Progression[edit]

  • Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
  • Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review[edit]

  • no dabs found by the tools;
  • ext links all work;
  • Alt text could be added to the images, although this is just a suggestion and is not a GA requirement.

Criteria[edit]

  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  • I made a few tweaks as part of my review, please check that you agree with these;
  • I think that generally the article is using US English variation, which is fine, however, the word "metres" appears a couple of times (this is British English spelling). I think this is occuring because of the conversion templates. I think if you want them to use US spelling, you need to add the following code: "|sp=us";
  • I suggest wikilinking the term "salient" on first mention;
  • I suggest adding a small clause here explaing why it was too late (the start of the war, presumably): "It was too late to be built, with a projected construction time of 18 months";
  • in the Design and construction section, what is a "cloche" - is there some way this can be explained, or linked? (possibly Maginot line#Armoured cloches);
  • in the Manning section, there is an issue with punctuation: "The 1940 manning of the ouvrage under the command of Lieutenant Bourguignon. comprised 97 men and 3 officers of the 155th Fortress Infantry Regiment (155th RIF) and the 169th Position Artillery Regiment (169th RAP)";
  • there is some inconsistency in style presentation, for instance "2nd Army" and "Second Army" - these should be the same as they are essentially proper nouns;
  • in the References section, the ISBN for one of the works doesn't seem to be correct. Can you please check this if possible?
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  • No issues.
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  • No issues.
  • No issues
  • It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  • No issues.
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':
  • A map showing dispositions, nearby locations and directions of attack would be a great addition (suggestion only)
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:
  • Passing for GA, good work. I'd be obliged if you would look into the ISBN issue when you get a chance, although it is a very minor thing. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)