Talk:Andrew III of Hungary/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Neil916 (talk · contribs) 18:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Neil916 and I will be reviewing this article.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose flows well, no grammar issues found. The article does an excellent job of educating the reader without using distracting terminology or awkwardly-written sentences. It is logically organized.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead provides an excellent summary of the important points of a comprehensive article.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Well referenced with sources and page numbers provided for cross-checking.
	2b. 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).	Extensively referenced to apparently reliable sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Assertions in the article are linked with in-line references to reliable sources
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article is very informative and comprehensive. Extensively wikilinked to potentially unfamiliar terms but not overlinked.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article is focused
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is neutral
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No active conflicts over content.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are credibly tagged as public domain or CC BY-SA, but I am not familiar enough to know whether a scan from a book published in 2000 (the "Andrew's denarius" image) really qualifies as public domain.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are helpful and relevant. A map is included that provides additional context.
	7. Overall assessment.	This is a very well-written and comprehensive article. I feel smarter for having had the chance to read it.

Neil916, thank you for your comprehensive review and kind words. I think the review process has not been completed because the article is not listed among the GAs. Borsoka (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka, I added it [1]; perhaps you can see what I did wrong. Neil916 (Talk) 06:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now it is OK. Thank you again for your work. Have a nice day! Borsoka (talk) 11:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]