Talk:Cipher Bureau (Poland)/GA2

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

There are no disambiguous links. I also ran the article through AWB and fixed a couple of minor things. The article in my opinion needs a lot of work to meet GA standards and my first imulse is to fail it but since I am pretty new to GA reviews I will put it on hold to give you a chance to work on it. --Kumioko (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Reviewer: Kumioko (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Problems with links
 * There are 2 broken links in the references. The first is to enigmahistory.org and the second is for nsa.gov. It appears the NSA.gov is just missing the www. preceding it.
 * Lede
 * The lede needs to be expanded a little. It doesn't currently summerize the article.
 * Prose
 * there is quite a bit of prose work needed on the article. There are short choppy sentences, some weasel words, there are several areas were small sentences shoudl be combined for better flow and structure (such as the first the in the Polish-Soviet War section). There are even a couple places that sorta look as though they were copied verbatim from the source (I cannot verify that because I don't have the source personally). One example of this is the first 3 paragraphs of the Stalking Enigma section.
 * Inline citations
 * the first 2 paragraphs under Polish-Soviet War don't have all the required inline citations
 * Expansion
 * The section on Cipher Bureau needs to be expanded a bit. Is it still around? If not what happened to it? What duties did they have before they added the additional responsibilities?
 * The Kabaty Woods section needs to be expanded a little. Maybe some info about how it was better.
 * Reference issues
 * the first reference has a ? in the page number. If you don't know the ypage it would be better to leave it off unless the page number is actually ? for some reason.
 * refs 10, 11 and 14 could be combined like you do for 8.
 * under the references section the references shoudl be sorted by the authors last name in Last name, First name format.
 * refs 12 and 13 also look like the same refs with different formatting
 * it looks as thought there are a couple of references mentioned in the references
 * for the references that are written in polish (assuming its polish but) should reflect the language in the reference. You do it for some but all the non english references need it.
 * Images
 * I think the caption for the image with Hitler in his 6 wheeled mercedes should be changed a little. The image is referring to Hitler and his car but then states "Seven years earlier, the German military Enigma had been broken in this very building" I think it shoudl say something like "Seven years earlier, the German military Enigma had been broken in the building in the background."
 * The File:Gwido Langer Gustave Bertrand Kenneth McFarlan.jpg image has a deprecated tag and should be fixed.


 * Thank you for your insightful suggestions. I think that I have addressed the matters that I am able to.  Perhaps others can help with those that I don't know how to, such as illustration permissions.  Nihil novi (talk) 11:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think it woudl be possible for you to note which items above you were able to accomplish. I can probably help you figure out the others. Not sure about the illustration question but I know a couple folks I can ask. --Kumioko (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that, apart from the "File:Gwido Langer Gustave Bertrand Kenneth McFarlan.jpg" illustration, all the points have essentially been addressed.
 * Notes 10-14 refer to different sources (though some of them do appear in the same Kozaczuk 1984 Enigma book). Nihil novi (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, I am promoting this article to GA, good job. --Kumioko (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for your perceptive critique of the article's original version. I don't know who nominated it for GA status, but I do know that your suggestions were crucial to its improvement.  Thank you! Nihil novi (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)