Talk:Alsos Mission/GA1

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

Reviewer: Σ (talk · contribs) 01:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've taken a quick look at it, and in general it is good. I will add some comments here after reading it more thoroughly. → Σ  τ  c . 02:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead

 * ...discern how far the Germans had gone towards creating an atomic bomb. I believe that discern German progress towards the creation of an atomic bomb. reads better.
 * Sounds good. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Alsos Mission personnel followed close behind the front lines...capture by the Soviet Union. Seems unnecessarily long. I would try splitting it in two.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Origin

 * In 1943, Brigadier General Wilhelm D. Styer... LINK discourages links next to each other.
 * Unavoidable. One is a rank and the other links to the name. I have had many Featured Articles with this. We can agree to disagree, as MOS:LINK is not required for GAN. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. → Σ  τ  c . 01:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ...General George Marshall... Same as above.
 * It was not restricted to those involving nuclear weapons. What was it restricted to, then? Or was it restricted at all?
 * The Chief of Army Intelligence, Major General George V. Strong, appointed Lieutenant Colonel Boris Pash... Again, adjacent links.

Italy

 * Pash met with Marshal of Italy Pietro Badoglio Adjacent links again.
 * Is the whole first paragraph sourced to ref 12?
 * Yes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Britain

 * ...radioactive poisons was sufficient to warn General Dwight D. Eisenhower... Adjacent links again.

Germany

 * There is a single-sentence paragraph at the bottom, although it isn't a major concern.
 * Actually it has two. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Japan

 * they met with the intelligence staff General of the Army Douglas MacArthur's AFPAC. Adjacent links.

Assessment
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria I'm happy with the article.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: