Talk:2nd Army Group (Kingdom of Yugoslavia)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 05:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I will review this article against the GA criteria over the next couple of days or so. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Overall, the article is in pretty good shape. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * in the lead, "It consisted of the 1st Army and 2nd Army" --> "It consisted of the 1st and 2nd Armies..."?
 * Done.
 * "and had several units with a significant proportion of Croat soldiers" --> can/should it be clarified why this was significant?
 * Becomes apparent later in the article, I'm not sure it necessary to introduce it here.
 * I think this quote should be attributed: with 2nd Army having "no combat importance at all"
 * Done.
 * "Savoia-Marchetti SM.75 transport aircraft formerly with the civilian airline MALERT" --> "Savoia-Marchetti SM.75 transport aircraft formerly belonging to the civilian airline MALERT"?
 * Done.
 * in the Notes section, is there a citation/footnote that could be added for Note a?
 * Added.
 * the article talks about the unit solely in terms of its existence in World War II, did it exist before this or after?
 * Basically, the Army Group didn't exist prior or after the invasion, and the subordinate armies only existed on paper (and in terms of a "Foost Army District") prior to mobilisation. So the life of the Army Group is what is shown here.
 * Sure, no worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Criteria
 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose: clarity, conciseness, grammar and spelling, copyright): b (MoS: lead, layout, W2W, fiction and list):


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:


 * 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:


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Happy with your changes. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, Rupert! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries at all. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)