Talk:Commissioner Government/GA1

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

Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 15:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

It is an interesting article. I am glad to pick it up for a review! Would be making straight forward changes as I go, but, as always, please feel free to revert any, if I make a mistake! Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * "included;" extra semi-colon I guess. :P
 * Good pick-up, used a colon and then semi-colons.


 * Perhaps the lead could be expanded a bit? Not a compulsion though, as it looks good even now. However, I just thought that we could have a bit more in the lead.
 * Added a bit about German supervision.


 * Perhaps give a slight idea of what these German military ranks are, in brackets? Reichsmarschall, etc.
 * Added notes with footnotes, except Reichsmarschall, which was a unique rank and position.


 * "the Luftwaffe transfer a training school..." would be better to name the Luftwaffe instead, as it seems ambiguous (I think it is schroder?)!
 * reworded, see what you think?


 * "This meeting resolved to shift to a general uprising" This should be reworded.
 * added "from sabotage operations" after shift


 * "administration encouraged 545 or 546 prominent" I did not quite understand the numbers... 545 or 546?
 * There is a note which explains the different numbers in the sources.
 * Thanks for the review, ! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Great work with this one, Peacemaker67! Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: