Talk:Wilhelm Fahrmbacher/GA1

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

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 13:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Review

 * 1) Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
 * 2) Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
 * 3) Contains a short description which complies with recommendations.
 * 4) Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
 * 5) Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
 * 6) ''Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
 * 7) Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
 * 8) Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
 * 9) Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
 * 10) All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
 * 11) All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
 * 12) Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
 * 13) No original research.
 * 14) No copyright violations or plagiarism.
 * 15) Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
 * 16) Neutral.
 * 17) Stable.
 * 18) Illustrated, if possible.
 * 19) Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

I'll be happy to do this review. Hope to provide some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm around to make any necessary changes. --Shimbo (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Result
Sorry, but this article fails GA review despite its good sources. It is no better than an average start-class in terms of quality and should not have been nominated for GA. I'm applying immediate WP:GAFAIL because if is a long way from meeting the key well written criterion; the lead fails the MOS; the layout is poor with single sentence paragraphs and sections; and there is insufficient breadth of coverage. I made these notes as I worked through:


 * Only 6,789 B (1,107 words) RPS so I cannot see a need for four paragraphs in the lead (see MOS:LEADLENGTH).


 * There is nothing about his early life or education; his story begins in 1907 when he joined the army aged 18.


 * If there is no specific linkage for the Field Artillery units, are there any generic articles that hold information about them? If so link to those, using piping.


 * Link ranks such as lieutenant, adjutant, major general, etc. throughout article.


 * The infobox in the edit needs to be tidied by alignment to improve readability.


 * Is the article meant to be in British or American English – I'm seeing British dates like 24 August 1914 in the same sentence as an American spelling like "hospitalized". Later, two sections include "Defense" in their titles. Consistency is needed throughout.


 * Single sentence paragraphs are deprecated and several of the sub-sections are too short.


 * It is normal to use WWI and WWII as shorthand for the world wars (not WW1 and WW2).


 * "In this position" sounds like a nine to five job. More appropriate would be something like "Holding this rank".


 * Any suitable linkage for "mountain cannon battery" so that a reader can easily see what is meant? Is it a special type of artillery?


 * The WWI section doesn't say anything at all about locations or campaigns. Was he on the Western Front or the Eastern Front? If he fought with mountain artillery, where were the mountains?


 * Was he a member of the Nazi Party at any time and do we know anything of his political beliefs and activities? This needs to be discussed in the Between the Wars section given that he is later described as "too well-known as a Nazi".


 * When did he leave the defence ministry? Was it before or after Hitler took power? If it was in August 1938, that needs to be made clear.


 * "Invasion of Poland" should not be capitalised.


 * The sequence "fighting in the Battle of Bialystok–Minsk, Battle of Smolensk (1941), Battle of Vyazma, Battle of Moscow and Battle of Gshatsk" is too repetitive. Needs to be changed to "fighting in the battles of Bialystok–Minsk, Smolensk (1941), Vyazma, Moscow and Gshatsk" with piped links.


 * Link to Brittany should be on first instance.


 * In the Defence of Brittany section, "with US forces breaking out into Brittany after Operation Cobra" isn't good prose. Better would be "with US forces advancing into Brittany after Operation Cobra".


 * The Pontaubault bridge is properly called the Pont Aubaud. It spans the River Sélune and, as you say, Patton's army famously captured it on 31 July 1944, enabling several divisions to cross the Sélune. A few more details here would add value.


 * In the same section, the date given is 31st July instead of 31 July.


 * Change St. Malo to its correct form, which is Saint-Malo.


 * Link needed to Quiberon.


 * Comma or preferably endash needed in "...implementation of Operation Chastity a plan to develop..."


 * Another American spelling is "organizing".


 * Replace comma after "1951 to 1958" with a full stop.


 * Link Egyptian Army.


 * In the "see also" section, there is a mixture of hyphens and endashes which should all be the latter.


 * The book by Joachim Ludewig isn't used for any citations so should be in a further reading section.

If these changes are made, they will at least raise the quality of the article but there will remain the problem of breadth of coverage because the article badly needs expansion in many places. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)