# Talk:August Kork

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: 

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)
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): 

Is it neutral?
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: 

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: 

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)