Talk:August Kork

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:Biography: Military

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Estonia Low‑importance

	August Kork is part of WikiProject Estonia, a project to maintain and expand Estonia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : WikiProject Estonia/Missing articles Assess : Rate each tagged article by quality and importance to the WikiProject if it has not been done. (See Category:Unassessed Estonia articles) Infobox : Add infoboxes to articles without it Maintain : Portal:Estonia Photo : Upload and/or add a photo to articles without it (See Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Estonia) Stubs : Add info to stub-articles and check for start-class.

Military history: Biography / Russian & Soviet / World War I

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force World War I task force

GA Review

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

1. 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:

2. 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)

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

7. 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)

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)