Talk:Reichsgesetzblatt

Reichsgesetzblatt has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 16, 2025. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Reichsgesetzblatt appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 20 September 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Reichsgesetzblatt was last issued five days before the Battle of Berlin began?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Reichsgesetzblatt.

Wikipedia

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Newspapers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the Reichsgesetzblatt was last issued five days before the Battle of Berlin begun? Source: (in German):
Gesetze des NS-Staates: Dokumente eines Unrechtssystems, p. 22:
Das letzte Reichsgesetzblatt ist am 11. April 1945 ausgegeben worden, dem Tag , an dem Würzburg von den Amerikanern eingenommen wurde, zwei Tage vor dem Fall von Wien und fünf Tage vor dem russischen Großangriff auf Berlin. - translated: The last Reichsgesetzblatt was issued on 11 April 1945, the day on which Würzburg was taken by the Americans, two days before the fall of Vienna and five days before the major Russian attack on Berlin.
Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Flying Machines Which Do Not Fly

Created by WatkynBassett (talk). Self-nominated at 07:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Reichsgesetzblatt; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall:

@WatkynBassett:

Good article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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)[reply]

Reviewer: Scratchinghead (talk · contribs) 16:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]