Jump to content

Talk:German–Yugoslav Partisan negotiations/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 00:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Progression[edit]

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

Technical review[edit]

  • Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
  • Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action req'd)
  • Linkrot: external links check out [4] (no action req'd)
  • Alt text: All images have alt text [5] (no action req'd).
  • Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing [6] (no action req'd).
  • Duplicate links: no repeat links (no action req'd).

Criteria[edit]

  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • I fixed a typo otherwise no issues that I could see.
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • Article is well referenced with all major points cited to WP:RS.
    • No issues with OR that I could see.
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    • All major points seem to be covered without unnecessary detail.
  • It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
    • No issues I could see.
  • It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    • No issues here.
  • 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:
    • Images all seem to be free / PD and have the req'd information / templates.
    • Captions seem ok.
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:
    • Article meets the GA criteria in my opinion, and I could find very little to fault it. Anotherclown (talk) 10:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]