Talk:Walter Oesau/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * In the sentence beginning The Hurricane (P3671) belonging …, why is the Flying Officer's name in italics?
 * Lots of overlinkining. As a single example, Battle of Britain is linked once in the section "Battle of France", once immediately after that as the main article for the section "Battle of Britain" and twice more in that same section. In this case, I would recommend leaving the only the main link and unlinking the others. Please check for other duplicate links to people (like Hannes Trautloft), ranks (like Gruppenkommandeur ), and the like.
 * Incorporated. Perseus71 (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ordinal suffixes (th, st, rd) should not be superscripted. done
 * Date ranges should be specified with an unspaced en-dash done
 * Is Luftwaffe supremo a real rank? If so, please link to it. If not, please reword to something less colloquial. done his role here was Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Aren't U.S. aircraft designations usually represented with a hyphen ("B-17"), rather than an en-dash ("B–17")? done
 * German words, ranks, and titles need to be consistently italicized. In the section "Death", Geschwaderkommodore is not in italics
 * Weasel words: The phrase it is claimed in the sentence beginning However it is claimed that he had good sense… in section "Personality and personal life". Who claims this?
 * Incorporated. Perseus71 (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Peacock-ish phrasing: The sentence beginning Although other experts would end up dying in combat…. This should be more closely attributed to the source, like "Author John Doe says that…"
 * Incorporated. Perseus71 (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Multiple references should be in order. In the sentence beginning His body was thrown clear …, they are not. done MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Does reference [23] also cover this phrase: even one mention is considered to be high military honor.?
 * Are the English translations in section "References in the Wehrmachtbericht" your own or are they from a source? I did this. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I had asked because if they were from a source, they needed to be cited. Since they are yours (with the original German provided) there's no need. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 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):
 * Are you sure this okay? Have a look again at the reasoning for File:Walter Oesau.jpg. A picture of Heinrich Bär with the same reasoning was rejected at FA-class review. I am personally interested in this because the article I am working on now (Wolfgang Lüth) uses a picture with the same rational. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't see this comment sooner, but, by the GA criteria, it is acceptable because it has a valid license and there's nothing blatantly wrong with it. An in-depth analysis of the finer points of image licensing is beyond the scope of the GA process. If you want a more informed opinion, though, ask Elcobbola; he is wise in the ways of copyright. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold
 * Are you sure this okay? Have a look again at the reasoning for File:Walter Oesau.jpg. A picture of Heinrich Bär with the same reasoning was rejected at FA-class review. I am personally interested in this because the article I am working on now (Wolfgang Lüth) uses a picture with the same rational. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't see this comment sooner, but, by the GA criteria, it is acceptable because it has a valid license and there's nothing blatantly wrong with it. An in-depth analysis of the finer points of image licensing is beyond the scope of the GA process. If you want a more informed opinion, though, ask Elcobbola; he is wise in the ways of copyright. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold
 * On hold

On the whole, this is a nice article with some minor prose and MOS issues that keep it from passing on first reading. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)