Talk:August Kork
Appearance
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the August Kork article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
August Kork has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: January 19, 2017. (Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from August Kork appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 February 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:August Kork/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I will give this article a review for possible Good Article status. Shearonink (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC) Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 04:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- will take another pass but everything looks good so far. Shearonink (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Ran the copyvio tool and none were found. Shearonink (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- It enhances the article that the writer-editor was able to get a photo of the man.
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- I tried to go through this article with a fine-toothed comb but I can only find a few quibbles that are more a matter of personal preference but that probably need to be dealt with going forward (if the nominator wants to go for a possible FA). The amount of redlinked non-articles is visually jarring, I think their numbers need to be pruned down a bit but other than that I think this article is well-written, impeccably-sourced, conveys the facts but holds the narrative timeline. I am not that familiar with the finer points of Soviet military history but the ends of Kork and his wife - what they went through before they both died - gets me every time. Every time. Shearonink (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
This article is on hold until I can do a few more readthroughs. So far I have been unable to be much, if anything that need fixing. Shearonink (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Pleasure to read, job well-done. Shearonink (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Categories:
- Wikipedia good articles
- Warfare good articles
- GA-Class biography articles
- GA-Class biography (military) articles
- Low-importance biography (military) articles
- Military biography work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- GA-Class Estonia articles
- Low-importance Estonia articles
- WikiProject Estonia articles
- GA-Class military history articles
- GA-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
- Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
- GA-Class World War I articles
- World War I task force articles
- Wikipedia Did you know articles