Talk:Battle of Logorište/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 07:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
A few very minor grammatical tweaks were made here and there. With that done, the article complies with policies on style, prose, and structure. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; 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
The article makes frequent citations to a relatively vast collection of reputable sources. In terms of verifiability nothing seems left to chance. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- (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
Looks as though all aspects of the subject for which relevant, encyclopedic information can be reliably provided have been covered in thorough. None of the information in the article appears irrelevant or excessive. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)
The article discusses all aspects of the topic in a fair, neutral manner. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The edit history shows that the article has scarcely been edited since last November, and no unconstructive edits seem to have been made amongst the revisions immediately shown, so I think the stability factor is in the clear. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
All three images used in the article are validly licensed, and play relevant illustrative roles. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content
- (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
After reading through the article and checking it against the outlined criteria above, I am confident that it is ready to be classified among the GAs of Wikipedia. Congratulations! :) As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)