Talk:Mehmed II's Albanian campaign/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: —Ed!^(talk) 19:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Comments

   1. I made a few tweaks to make sure the article is as neutral as possible. Take a look to see if they are correct.
   2. In the lead, several links are linked to more than once. A link should only be linked to on first reference.
   3. "Republic of Venice played the usual diplomatic game of turning Skanderbeg's allies against him in order to weaken Alfonso's influence." - editorializing. Please word this in a more neutral way.
   4. "Skanderbeg realized that if Mehmed struck now, he would be in great difficulty since he lacked the resources and the support." - the resources and support to do what? Please specify.
   5. "Alfonso created similar alliances with John Musachi, George Stres Balsha, Muzaka Thopia, Peter Himariot, and Simon Zenevishi." - what is the significance of these people. Specify it in the article.
   6. Dates need to be consistent with either "day month" or "month day."
   7. "The European powers were locked in internal conflicts: e.g. Venice at war with Milan, Naples at war with Genoa and Florence." - you should also link to these conflicts so the reader can go to them for more info on the conflicts.
   8. Please put the book references into {{cite book}} templates.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Pass

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass

5. It is stable:

   Pass

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Comment The image captions should relate the significance of the image itself directly to the article. The portrait for example should just identify who the person is, and the image of the fighting should identify if it was a painting of the battle. We rely on the text to explain directly what the situation is, so you don't need to add the extra info in the image captions.

7. Overall:

   On Hold just sort out a few details above and this article should be good. Overall it's already very well written.

   Thanks for taking the time to review this article! I tried to make all of the proper revisions. How do they look?--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

   Excellent! Passing the GA now. Well done! —Ed!^(talk) 02:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)