Talk:Đakovo internment camp/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Đakovo internment camp. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 09:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
This looks an interesting article on an important topic. I will commence this review shortly as part of the July 2021 backlog drive. simongraham (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Review
The article is clearly written and covers an interesting topic. It is stable, 92% of authorship is one user, Amanuensis Balkanicus. It is currently ranked a Start class article.
The six good article criteria:
1. It is reasonable well written
The prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
The text uses standard English and is aimed at a non-technical audience. It is free of spelling and grammar errors.
It complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
The article complies with the relevant MOS.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable
It contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
The Reference section is formatted correctly.
All inline citations are from reliable sources.
A wide range of sources are used, primarily books published by reputable publishers. One reference in Serbo-Croat has not been checked but this is for a single fact, the name of an officer responsible for a particular operation, and is not controversial.
It contains no original research.
The article is fully referenced and contains no obvious original research.
It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
The article has been checked for plagarism with Writix and none has been found.
3. It is broad in its coverage
It addresses the main aspects of the topic.
The article covers the main aspects, including the background and subsequent memorial.
It stays ffocused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
Information included is relevant and remains focused on the topic.
4. It has a neutral point of view
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
The article covers a controversial topic without emotive language and with balance. All information is from referenced third party sources.
5. It is stable
It does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
The edit history shows limited reversions. There was a major major expansion on 23 March.
6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
Images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
Images are tagged appropriately and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported or CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication.
Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Images are relevant and include maps to provide context.
Assessment
This article covers an important topic in an impartial way. It is of particular interest to the WikiProjects covering Croatia, Jewish history, Serbia and Yugoslavia.
Congratulations. This article meets the criteria to be a Good Article. Pass/Fail: Pass -- simongraham (talk) 09:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, simongraham. I'm glad that you took this review on, but I'm not convinced that it provides sufficient scrutiny of its topic per Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles#Assessing_the_article_and_providing_a_review. It's expected that you at minimum are able to check some of the sources and verify the most important points in the article. This is doubly true for Balkan history (especially historical atrocities) which are known for being highly controversial and should get extra scrutiny to make sure that they're accurate and balanced. (t · c) buidhe 20:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: Thank you for your comments. I did these activities as part of the review and found the article in compliance with the GA requirements without large amendments being required. I have expanded the review to provide more information; it is now in line with other GA reviews (for example The Holocaust in Albania). Please tell me if you would like more explanation or if there are omissions. However, I would like to commend the author as I feel this article is amongst the best written of those I have reviewed for GA. simongraham (talk) 07:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- As long as you checked for accuracy, it's good. Never hurts to state explicitly in the GA review what you did to evaluate the article as it lets other editors know that the review was fully rigorous. (t · c) buidhe 07:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: Thank you for your comments. I did these activities as part of the review and found the article in compliance with the GA requirements without large amendments being required. I have expanded the review to provide more information; it is now in line with other GA reviews (for example The Holocaust in Albania). Please tell me if you would like more explanation or if there are omissions. However, I would like to commend the author as I feel this article is amongst the best written of those I have reviewed for GA. simongraham (talk) 07:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)