# Talk:Reichsgesetzblatt

This review is transcluded from Talk:Reichsgesetzblatt/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: WatkynBassett (talk · contribs) 21:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Scratchinghead (talk · contribs) 16:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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: 

B. 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): 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

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 non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
A caption needs to be added for the infobox image.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
The sources are very good. There is no plagiarism (the fact that most of the sources are in German helps) and I would say no original research. It is perfectly neutral and stable, and I believe the images don't really need much work. It's also well written. There were some trivial grammatical errors and lines with a bit too many words for comfort and I made minor fixes to those.
My main problem is that it seems to be a bit hard to understand for an ordinary viewer but since I'm not an experienced editor I believe that shouldn't be a problem for others.
So I will pass the article. @WatkynBassett ☢️SCR@TCH!NGH3@D (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
i'm going to start reviewing now... i'm new to reviewing so i may ask a second opinion ☢️SCR@TCH!NGH3@D (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)