Talk:Atlantic Wall/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (talk · contribs) 23:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a little time to go over the article.Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 23:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Partly Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Dup links to "Low Countries" Fixed. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 23:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply] Repeating the same cite over and over again in a row is unecessary. At the end of the day, it comes down to personal opinion. I prefer to always leave a cite after a period, even if it means repeating. Not against WP:MOS. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 23:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I'm certain that there are more sources that talk about the Atlantic Wall But of course, there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of sources talking about the Atlantic Wall, but one reliable source is enough to support a claim or statement; perhaps you had some specific sentences in mind you would like some more sources to support? Let me know, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 23:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
	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.

Tomandjerry211, thank you for your review. I believe I've responded to all your points. Let me know if there is anything else. :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 23:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passing, well done.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 23:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]