Talk:Führerbunker/GA1

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

Reviewer: Feitlebaum (talk · contribs) 23:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Everything passes except for 1a. now since those minor copy edits were made.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * I've only got a few small quibbles-
 * exits led into the main buildings and there was an emergency exit up to the gardens-Perhaps that could be rephrased as exits led into the main buildings, as well as an emergency exit. ✅
 * The 1943 development-It says 1943 in the lead, but 1944 in the body. It's unclear when the second part was built. ✅
 * He was joined by his senior staff, Martin Bormann, and later, Eva Braun-Was Bormann his senior staff, or was he joined by Bormann and his senior staff? When did Eva Braun move in? ✅
 * The bunker was crowded and oppressive,-Oppressive? How can an inanimate be oppressive? I don't understand that. You must have meant something else. ✅ - see what you think.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * Pretty much complies with all of the MoS for GA.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * Sources look reliable.
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No bias whatsoever.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * No edit wars, although it's edited semi-frequently.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * All images are from Commons.
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This article looks really good, and if those small prose issues are fixed, it'll be GA-status . Great job! Feitlebaum (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Kierzek (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This article looks really good, and if those small prose issues are fixed, it'll be GA-status . Great job! Feitlebaum (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Kierzek (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Kierzek (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)