# Talk:Mikhail Petrov (general)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mikhail Petrovich Petrov (general)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 13:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Well constructed article. Will comeback with suggestions within a day or two. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience Kges1901. Owing to my educational constraints I was unable to review the article. I will free my 13 September, and will start the review soon from then. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


### Section 1
Sentence 2; Consider rewording it as After graduating from the fourth grade, he worked as a metalworker at the Putilov Plant and also as a chauffeur.
Sentence 3; It must be "The Bolsheviks" not just "Bolsheviks".
Both fixed. Kges1901 (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


### Section 2
Last sentence; "The 17th Mechanized Corps was a cadre-strength formation equipped with only 36 tanks" is unnecessary, because the size of the corps has nothing to do with the subject.
I think that it is relevant to note that the corps was not at full strength, because it provides context for what happened after Operation Barbarossa. Kges1901 (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


### Section 3
Why years were not mentioned with any of the dates? Please correct this.
MOS:DATEVAR says that years can be omitted if there is no risk of ambiguity. I believe I have made it clear that the events described in the WWII section all happened in 1941. Kges1901 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
The latter sentences in the first para are so confusing. Please revise them
Sentences revised. Kges1901 (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
These are my initial suggestions. Once these are addressed, I will suggest more if needed. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
16 September 2016
Para 2; sentence 6; It is said the army HQ was visited by some journalist, please make it clear whether it was HQ of the whole Red Army or of 50th Army.
Para; last sentence; Consider replacing "incorrectly" with "mistakenly".
Add a subsection with title "Death" as section 3.1 as the complete para is about it.
Para 3; Wiki-link "gangrene" at it's first use (article is available, Gangrene).


### Lead
Consider splitting the lead into two paras.
Almost done to go. Once these are addressed, I shall pass the article. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga:  Changes done. Kges1901 (talk) 07:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)