Talk:Geneva Declaration (1918)/GA1

GA Review

Passed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 17:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will take this review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the 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~~:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line 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:

C. It contains no original research:
Will conduct a source spotcheck.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Earwig has plagiarism of 18%.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

Image issues

File:Krfska.jpg, File:Portrait of Ante Trumbić.jpg, and File:NikolaPasic--balkancockpitpol00pric 0191.png are missing half of their license.

Source spotcheck (6 random citations checked, don't have access to Janković 1964 which I will AGF on)

1 fine
15 first one yes, second one irrelevant
18 fine
21 both fine
23 fine
70 fine

I will get to this review in the next week. If you have time, please consider reviewing an article at WP:GAN. I will be using this review in the WikiCup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking time to do this review. I will try to address any concerns regarding the article as quickly as possible. Tomobe03 (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tomobe03, great article! I'll put it on hold while you address the image issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm generally away from my computer today and tomorrow, but I expect to address this on Friday (3 March). Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I managed to fix all image issues except "Krfska". I hope to get to that one and other issues by tomorrow.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the "Krfska" image provisionally. I think it is reasonable to assume it was published in early 1920s at the latest (if not in 1917, but I have not managed to find the publication data right now. I intend to restore the image to the article once the information is found. I have removed the irrelevant cite and therefore I think I have addressed all the issues raised in this GAR.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. Promoting now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.