Talk:Pyotr Masherov/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Ray 02:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Raymond Kestis (talk · contribs) 04:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'll be your GAN reviewer. I will be using the template below. Ray 04:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mupper-san Ray 04:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also recommend not using words such as "faux pas" and "nom-de guerre" as the average reader doesn't know what those words mean. Replace it with terms in the English language. Ray 00:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notify me when you fix the typos and grammar errors. Ray 23:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have made edits to typos, grammatical errors, and non-English terms. Please do let me know if there are any additional errors that I missed, as I'm more than happy to fix them.

Mupper-san (talk) 03:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest replacing "office of the dentist" to just "dentist's office".

Put commas after the year: "In September 1943, he was promoted [...]." Do the same with places. "In Brest, [...]." Ray 07:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've fixed these issues within the article.

Mupper-san (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change these sentences ("In Brest Masherov's activities were similar to [...].", "In Brest Masherov lived in what had formerly been [...].", and "Near Smalyavichy Masherov's vehicle suffered [...].")

to "In Brest, Masherov's activities were similar to [...].", "In Brest, Masherov lived in what had formerly been [...].", and "Near Smalyavichy, Masherov's vehicle suffered [...]." Other than that, your article is good. Ray 09:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, add a comma after saying the place. Ray 13:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my apologies, it seems I forgot to do so beforehand. Regardless, it should now be fixed.

Mupper-san (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the minor errors myself, passing the article now. Ray 02:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Follows MOS guidelines.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	1b.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.