Talk:Walter Oesau/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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)

2. 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)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   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)