Talk:Gottlob Berger/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 11:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Progression

 * Version of the article when originally reviewed:
 * Version of the article when review was closed:

Technical review

 * Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
 * Disambiguations: no dab links (no action req'd).
 * Linkrot: no dead links (no action req'd)
 * Alt text: one of the images lacks alt text so you might consider adding it (not a GA requirement, suggestion only).
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing (seems to be picking up combinations of proper nouns and common words which cannot be avoided) (no action req'd).
 * Duplicate links: no duplicate links to be removed (no action req'd).

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Prose is a little repetitive here: "In the late 1920s he rejoined the Nazi Party and joined the paramilitary Sturmabteilung (SA) in 1931." Perhaps consider something like: "In the late 1920s he rejoined the Nazi Party and became a member of the paramilitary Sturmabteilung (SA) in 1931."
 * "After the murder of SA leader Ernst Röhm in July 1934..." I'm assuming Berger wasn't involved in this but I wonder if someone might get the wrong idea from the wording adopted?
 * The prose here is also a little repetive: "After the Balkan Campaign of April 1941, the LSSAH was expanded to divisional strength, and after the invasion of the Soviet Union commenced, a sixth Waffen-SS division...", consider instead something like: "After the Balkan Campaign of April 1941, the LSSAH was expanded to divisional strength, and following the commencement of the invasion of the Soviet Union, a sixth Waffen-SS division..."
 * Date range format is incorrect per WP:DATERANGE, for instance "1939–1940" should be shortened to "1939–40".
 * Some inconsistency in the presentation of figures, for instance: "more than 1000 Romanian Volksdeutsche" vs " The "national legions" each numbered 1,000" (see MOS:NUM for guidance).
 * "Himmler was lukewarm on his initial proposal, but as casualties started to mount in 1942, Himmler changed his mind...", consider more simply: "Himmler was lukewarm on his initial proposal, but as casualties started to mount in 1942, he changed his mind..."
 * I made a few tweaks to fix a few obvious typos etc.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The article seems to be well referenced with all major points supported by an inline citation
 * No issues with OR I could see.
 * A couple of minor issue with referencing:
 * The Nicholand Rennell work appears in the references list but does not appear to have been used as a short citation. Should it be moved to a "further reading" section?
 * In the references section I wonder if it is necessary to use constructions like "New York, New York". I realize you are following a consistent presentation of locations with city and state; however, it is generally not required for internationally renown cities. It also creates a almost silly situation in one instance where the reference information reads: "New York, New York: New York University Press" (suggestion only).


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article seems to cover all major aspects of the topic in some detail but doesn't go into unnecessary detail.


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * No issues I could see.


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * No issues here.


 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
 * Images seem to be free / PD and have the req'd information / templates.
 * Captions look fine.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Overall this looks fine to me, just a couple of mostly prose / formatting points to address. Anotherclown (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * All done. These are my edits. Thanks for the review, Ac! Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, those changes look fine to me. Closing the review as successful. Anotherclown (talk) 06:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)