Talk:Karađorđe/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 00:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Lead unanimously elected to ~~the~~ lead Body suggest adding links=no to subsequent iterations of each lang template, to avoid them coming up as duplinks, I've done one as an example to reign in Karađorđe's power Topola is overlinked "In 1813, Karađorđe was awarded the Order of Saint Anna by the Russian Empire." seems out of place, suggest moving it up to the chronologically most appropriate spot
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	lead section should be brought down to four paras, per the rule of thumb in MOS:LEAD
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.	the Banac 1998 and Banac 1984 short and long citations don't link, but it appears they should same with the Gyõre 2014 and Gyõre 2007 ones
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Are there any negative things written about him other than a bad temper and what appears to have been poor judgement regarding the agreement with the Ottomans (although that hasn't explicitly been said)?
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.	File:Battle of Mišar, Afanasij Scheloumoff.jpg needs author date of death or publishing information added (or both)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	~~Placing on hold for seven days for the above comments to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)~~ Passing Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in great shape. Great to see such a major figure in Serbian history being written up so well. Most of the above points are pretty minor tweaks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: What do you think? 23 editor (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not necessary at GA, but I think his weakness in terms of diplomacy will probably need to be fleshed out more explicitly if this is going to FAC eventually, including its role in his downfall, and reflected in the lead.

This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]