Talk:Egmont Prinz zur Lippe-Weißenfeld/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written:
 * Not Yet
 * The lead should be longer to summarize all of the sections of the article. done
 * The Wehrmachtbericht references should at least be mentioned in the bibliography prose. done
 * I would also suggest putting the awards section into either a paragraph format or some kind of table, to make it look better.
 * Other than that, the article seems fairly well written, occasional typo aside, well done.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable:
 * 2) Not Yet
 * The biography section is very sparse in citation. Every sentence containing a date or number needs a citation. done
 * The listing of the Iron Cross as an award needs a citation. done
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage:
 * Not Yet
 * His early life needs more extensive coverage. There is one sentence covering his birth and the next when he is 18. Where did he go to school? Where did his family live? Was he involved in any organizations? I know these things don't seem relavent compared to his military career, but it is essential that all of his life recieve coverage. done
 * The details of his kills need more detail. Which battles did he participate in? Which areas was he operating out of? mentioning the kill number at certain dates does not give enough detail, in my opinion. done at least this is all the info I have
 * His personal life is also important. Was he married? Did he have children? This kind of detail is essential for an article to be broad enough to be a GA. done
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It is stable:
 * 2) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) Overall:
 * On Hold The article needs a good deal more detail and citation. But I believe that, with these, it can eventually become a GA. - Ed! (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * On Hold The article needs a good deal more detail and citation. But I believe that, with these, it can eventually become a GA. - Ed! (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm out traveling for the next 4 weeks. I will address the issues once I'm back. Please be patient. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Just let me know when you've improved the article! - Ed! (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Very good, the article now meets the GA criteria, according to my interpretation of them. Well done! — Ed! (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)