Talk:Imperial German plans for the invasion of the United Kingdom/GA1

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

Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) 15:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll start this in a few days, but initial read through looks good. Made a couple of tweaks here--there was an incomplete sentence in invasion literature section. also reworked verbs to there was less passive voice. Ping me when you've had a chance to look it over. Haven't seen much on Erskine Childers or Le Queux recently. :) Cheers, auntieruth (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I recast your edit on Goltz's invasion idea. I think it's a bit much to call it a plan, and I'm anxious to make it clear that the invasion novel came some 2 to 3 years after his suggestion was shelved. Hope that's OK. Factotem (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2018 (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, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: