Jump to content

Talk:2nd Army Group (Kingdom of Yugoslavia)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 05:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I will review this article against the GA criteria over the next couple of days or so. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Overall, the article is in pretty good shape. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the lead, "It consisted of the 1st Army and 2nd Army" --> "It consisted of the 1st and 2nd Armies..."?
      • Done.
    • "and had several units with a significant proportion of Croat soldiers" --> can/should it be clarified why this was significant?
      • Becomes apparent later in the article, I'm not sure it necessary to introduce it here.
    • I think this quote should be attributed: with 2nd Army having "no combat importance at all"
      • Done.
    • "Savoia-Marchetti SM.75 transport aircraft formerly with the civilian airline MALERT" --> "Savoia-Marchetti SM.75 transport aircraft formerly belonging to the civilian airline MALERT"?
      • Done.
    • in the Notes section, is there a citation/footnote that could be added for Note a?
      • Added.
    • the article talks about the unit solely in terms of its existence in World War II, did it exist before this or after?
      • Basically, the Army Group didn't exist prior or after the invasion, and the subordinate armies only existed on paper (and in terms of a "Foost Army District") prior to mobilisation. So the life of the Army Group is what is shown here.
Criteria
  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose: clarity, conciseness, grammar and spelling, copyright): b (MoS: lead, layout, W2W, fiction and list):
  • 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 is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:
Happy with your changes. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Rupert! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]