Talk:Wolf-Dietrich Wilcke/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) 23:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status - they are a few minor grammatical issues. Otherwise this is a very nice article which reads remarkably well.

The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Too many sentences begin with "Following" in the lead.
 * "flew missions over Poland and claimed his first aerial victory" - you need to clarify here that this victory was not over Poland.
 * "eight French Curtiss P-36 Hawk and" - needs plural
 * all of the above issues have been addressed. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * It is stable.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Other comments
(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)
 * My only thought here is that some of these "ace" articles have spreadsheets listing the kills by day/type of aircraft etc, which would be useful given how often Wilcke moved theatres. Realistically for this article such a spreadsheet would have to be in a sub-article, but it would make for a clearer presentation of his victories as the war progressed. Is there a particular reason one hasn't been created here? Its not essential by any means, just a thought.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review. I have thought of this table before and will consider it moving forward. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)