Talk:Erwin Rommel/GA1

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

Reviewer: Beloved  Freak  14:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * not assessed
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Big problems with lack of citations.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * not assessed
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * not assessed
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * I'm not convinced, looking at the article history, that it is stable yet.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * not assessed
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Unfortunately there is a lot of work to be done before this is ready for a GA nomination.

I'm afraid that this article is not at the standard of Good Articles at this time. I won't provide a full, thorough review of the article as it seems to be unprepared for a nomination. The most obvious problem is that large amounts of the article are wholly unsourced, and unverifiable. Some of these sections are marked with maintenance tags, and there are others that aren't. There are also some citations to books that need page numbers to be added. At the very least, each section should have a citation, and any fact that can be reasonably challenged by a reader should be easily verifiable.

In order to prepare for a future GA nomination, I would recommend the nominator reads the Good Article criteria very carefully and works on meeting them. Then, especially if the nominator is a new editor, I would recommend asking for a peer review in which editors will have a much closer look at the article and identify any issues. You can also compare other articles on similar topics that are already Good, or Featured, articles. For example, have a look at the articles in Category:GA-Class biography (military) articles and Category:FA-Class biography (military) articles.-- Beloved Freak  14:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)