Talk:Monument to the fighters against the Comintern/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. —Ganesha811 (talk) 07:14, 27 February 2024 (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: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 21:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the slow pace of this review, I should be able to wrap it up this weekend. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Europeismo, thanks for your patience - please take a look at and address the source issues below. Once we're done with sourcing, the rest of the review should be pretty fast! —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for your review - I'm going to address these issues in a couple of days. Best regards, Europeismo (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Europeismo, let me know when you will have time to address the other source comments. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Europeismo, there haven't been any changes since the 11th and you have not edited in that time. I'll give it a couple more days, but then I'll have to close the review due to inactivity. If you are currently busy offline, I could also put it on hold for 1-2 weeks, but please let me know. —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ganesha811, could you put it on hold until this weekend? I'm busy on these days but sure I'll address the specified issues. Best regards, Europeismo (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it on hold for a week, I'll check back in then. Happy editing! —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! It's been more than two weeks since I made the source comments, and unfortunately, it's been a week on hold and not all issues have been addressed. I have to close the review now, with no prejudice against renomination. Happy editing and I hope you can get this article to GA at some point. Closing as unsuccessful. —Ganesha811 (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2024 (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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Can you explain the connection of each item in the 'Further Reading' section? Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Sure. All three sources mention the monument to the fighters against the Comintern and the Russian diaspora in Harbin. Europeismo (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 street was originally named..." This sentence is uncited.
	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).	The first source, the Harbin Times, should be italicized and capitalized, and given an English translation of the newspaper name and article title. Is there a specific author given? Done. There isn't a specific autor. --Europeismo (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] The Pervukhin source - what makes china-voyage.com a reliable source? Smirnov appears to be a deadlink/404 - please add an archive link or swap in a new, live link. Is it an academic paper? Does it have a DOI? Done --Europeismo (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Who is VG? Can you make a case for belrussia.ru being a reliable source (Voice of an emigrant) Can you make a case for artz.ru being a reliable source? (Art and architecture of Russian diaspora) The final source, #19, appears to be identical to the first - please combine. Comment: Changed 'journal' parameter to The Harbin Times, but it refers to different articles in the same newspaper, so I think it's better to keep the sources separated. --Europeismo (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Under Bibliography, I don't understand how the linking is formatted for Kozlov. Done. Link format changed. --Europeismo (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] In general, please adjust the sources under Bibliography to match the guidelines found here in the Manual of Style. Done. All titles are romanized. --Europeismo (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing found by Earwig, but it wouldn't work very well with these sources; hold for manual check.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Not able to find anything else about the subject in reliable sources. Pass.
	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.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no issues.
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.	Tags appear to be valid - 1941 --> 1991 is before URAA date in China. Pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

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.