Talk:Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Danielyng (talk · contribs) 20:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I am notifying you of my intentions to start reviewing this Article for Good Article status. Expect a full review to be out in a week at most, probably either tomorrow or Friday. Danielyng (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Danielyng, Hi, thanks for your review. But redlinks are not part of the GA criteria. The ones in this article meet the requirement in WP:REDYES. (t · c) buidhe 22:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
REVIEW ON NAZIS AND NAZI COLLABORATORS (PUNISHMENT)[edit]
INITIAL THOUGHTS[edit]
My initial thoughts are that this is a well-written article, including ample citations w/o original research, but there are a lot of Red Links, which I would recommend clearing up.
INITIAL SUGGESTIONS:[edit]
- Clear up the Red Links
CRITERIA[edit]
Well written:
- the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[
Verifiable with no original research:
- it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
- it contains no original research; and
- it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
Broad in its coverage:
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic
- it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral:
- it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable:
- it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Illustrated: if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
- media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
CRITERIA REVIEW[edit]
Well Written:
The prose of the Article is clear, and well written. It is understandable for a broad audience. 
VERIFIABLE WITH NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH[edit]
The information is sourced from reputable institutions. There is no original research.
BROAD IN ITS COVERAGE[edit]
The article addresses the main aspects of the topic and stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
STABLE[edit]
No edit warring going on.
ILLUSTRATED =[edit]
Illustrated with ample amount of media.
NEUTRAL[edit]
The article is Neutral.