# Talk:Ouvrage La Ferté

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ouvrage La Ferté/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


### Progression
Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
Version of the article when review was closed: [2]


### Technical review
a (Disambiguations):  b Linkrot  c Alt text 
no dabs  found by the tools;
ext links all work;
Alt text could be added to the images, although this is just a suggestion and is not a GA requirement.


### Criteria
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
I made a few tweaks as part of my review, please check that you agree with these;
I think that generally the article is using US English variation, which is fine, however, the word "metres" appears a couple of times (this is British English spelling). I think this is occuring because of the conversion templates. I think if you want them to use US spelling, you need to add the following code: "|sp=us";
I suggest wikilinking the term "salient" on first mention;
I suggest adding a small clause here explaing why it was too late (the start of the war, presumably): "It was too late to be built, with a projected construction time of 18 months";
in the Design and construction section, what is a "cloche" - is there some way this can be explained, or linked? (possibly Maginot line#Armoured cloches);
in the Manning section, there is an issue with punctuation: "The 1940 manning of the ouvrage under the command of Lieutenant Bourguignon. comprised 97 men and 3 officers of the 155th Fortress Infantry Regiment (155th RIF) and the 169th Position Artillery Regiment (169th RAP)";
there is some inconsistency in style presentation, for instance "2nd Army" and "Second Army" - these should be the same as they are essentially proper nouns;
in the References section, the ISBN for one of the works doesn't seem to be correct. Can you please check this if possible?
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
No issues.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
No issues.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
No issues
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 
No issues.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned):  b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain': 
A map showing dispositions, nearby locations and directions of attack would be a great addition (suggestion only)
Overall:
a Pass/Fail: 
Passing for GA, good work. I'd be obliged if you would look into the ISBN issue when you get a chance, although it is a very minor thing. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)