Talk:August Kork/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.'' I will give this article a review for possible Good Article status. Shearonink (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC) Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 04:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * will take another pass but everything looks good so far. Shearonink (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Ran the copyvio tool and none were found. Shearonink (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * It enhances the article that the writer-editor was able to get a photo of the man.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I tried to go through this article with a fine-toothed comb but I can only find a few quibbles that are more a matter of personal preference but that probably need to be dealt with going forward (if the nominator wants to go for a possible FA). The amount of redlinked non-articles is visually jarring, I think their numbers need to be pruned down a bit but other than that I think this article is well-written, impeccably-sourced, conveys the facts but holds the narrative timeline.  I am not that familiar with the finer points of Soviet military history but the ends of Kork and his wife - what they went through before they both died - gets me every time.  Every time. Shearonink (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * It enhances the article that the writer-editor was able to get a photo of the man.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I tried to go through this article with a fine-toothed comb but I can only find a few quibbles that are more a matter of personal preference but that probably need to be dealt with going forward (if the nominator wants to go for a possible FA). The amount of redlinked non-articles is visually jarring, I think their numbers need to be pruned down a bit but other than that I think this article is well-written, impeccably-sourced, conveys the facts but holds the narrative timeline.  I am not that familiar with the finer points of Soviet military history but the ends of Kork and his wife - what they went through before they both died - gets me every time.  Every time. Shearonink (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I tried to go through this article with a fine-toothed comb but I can only find a few quibbles that are more a matter of personal preference but that probably need to be dealt with going forward (if the nominator wants to go for a possible FA). The amount of redlinked non-articles is visually jarring, I think their numbers need to be pruned down a bit but other than that I think this article is well-written, impeccably-sourced, conveys the facts but holds the narrative timeline.  I am not that familiar with the finer points of Soviet military history but the ends of Kork and his wife - what they went through before they both died - gets me every time.  Every time. Shearonink (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is on hold until I can do a few more readthroughs. So far I have been unable to be much, if anything that need fixing. Shearonink (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Pleasure to read, job well-done. Shearonink (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)