Talk:Sd.Kfz. 10/GA1

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

GA review of this version: Pn = paragraph n • Sn = sentence n
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * One question: the sentence The Sd.Kfz. 10/5 carried the 2 cm FlaK 38 whose mount was wider, if lighter, than that of the Flak 30, and the platform was enlarged to accommodate it from 1942, specifically the "if lighter" bit doesn't quite make sense to me. Should it be "wider, if not lighter" or "wider, and also lighter"?


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Sources look fine, but there are a couple of citations that do not match the rest. Refs #12 and #24 need to be converted to just the last name (although in the case of Jantz's books, the year of publication needs to be added to each citation to differentiate them).
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Images all look good, but I do think they're too concentrated in the variants section, while other sections don't have any. In understand why you put them all in the variants section, but text-sandwiching is generally to be avoided. Maybe move the 10/1 photo in the variants section to the design and development section, and one of the 10/4s to the issue and use section?
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Images all look good, but I do think they're too concentrated in the variants section, while other sections don't have any. In understand why you put them all in the variants section, but text-sandwiching is generally to be avoided. Maybe move the 10/1 photo in the variants section to the design and development section, and one of the 10/4s to the issue and use section?
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments (which don't affect GA nomination):
 * Everything looks pretty good, except for the couple of minor things I pointed out above. I'm passing this article, but those things should be fixed before you take this article to A-class or FA. Nice work! Parsecboy (talk) 00:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I agree that your suggestions will help the article out. Thanks for the comments. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Citations #12 and #24 are the only time that their source is used in the article. My policy has been not to put things in the references section that are only listed once exactly so I don't have to add a year to differentiate between the same author's works. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)