Talk:Nasta Rojc/GA1

GA Review

Passed. simongraham (talk) 22:12, 5 August 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: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 13:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like another excellent article by SusunW (with some help from friends Ipigott and GRuban). I look forward to starting an assessment shortly. simongraham (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking it up simongraham. Look forward to working with you again. SusunW (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a pleasure. I will start with some comments. Simongraham (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is a stable and well-written article. 96.4% of authorship is by SusunW. It is currently assessed as a B class article and a Women in Green nominee..

The text is clear and comprehensive.
It is written in a summary style, consistent with relevant Manuals of Style.
The article is of reasonable length, with 3.703 words of readable prose.
The lead is quite long at 690 words. I suggest it is worth reducing it slightly.
- I trimmed it. Better? SusunW (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - That looks ideal. simongraham (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Text seems to be neutral.
"When World War II broke out, Rojc and Onslow joined the resistance movement. They were reported to the Ustaše, arrested, and sent to prison for several months in 1943 and were unable to reacquire their property until after the war ended. Onslow died in 1950. Rojc survived her for fourteen years and upon her death was buried with Onslow." While appreciating that Onslow is important for Rojc, suggest reducing this to simply Rojc for the lead.
- Except that they were both arrested. I changed the wording a bit to emphasize Onslow less. Better? 16:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
  - Fair enough. I wonder whether there is merit on an article on Onslow at some point. simongraham (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"in name only" links to Sham marriage. Is this a relevant link? Lavender marriage, although a term I have hitherto never encountered, seems more apposite.
- Thank you for that! I have changed it (in both places). SusunW (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excellent work. simongraham (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Dora Car redlink is followed by [wikidata]. I have not seen that before
- I failed to get it removed. I had been told in several GA reviews to use that but then after this discussion I stopped. Apparently it isn't allowed. Removed. SusunW (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. simongraham (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The notes include "all other sources consulted show 1926" and "Croatian sources routinely show Onslow died in 1949, although a few sources show 1946" I suggest "state" rather than "show".
- To avoid redundancy I wrote "give the year as" SusunW (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks good. simongraham (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There seem no obvious grammar or spelling errors.
The article relies on a range of sources.
Spot checks with Domljan 1995, Johnson 2012, Stepanović 2020 and Zorko 2019 confirm sources.
There is no evidence of edit wars.
Earwig's Copyvio Detector states copyright violation is unlikely, with a score of 29.1%. The closest text is Cornelis 2020, which is referenced in the text.
All accessible sources seem live.
The images seem appropriate and relevant.
- I have 2 photos that I have toyed with adding as fair use. One is of Šenoa and the other of Onslow. Both were taken by Rojc and we cannot prove they were published, so won't be in the PD until 2059 (1964 + 95). Your thoughts? SusunW (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - They both look relevant to me, but I do not think they are necessary for the article to be a Good Article. I suggest you look at them as part of a Featured Article candidature. simongraham (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All three images have relevant CC or PD tag.

@SusunW: Excellent work on this article. Please see my comments above and ping me when you would like me to look again. simongraham (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

simongraham Thank you for reviewing it and helping to improve the article. I loved learning about her. I have answered your queries above and have questions for you. Please advise. SusunW (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW You are very welcome. I feel all my questions have been answered well. I will start my assessment now.

Assessment

The six good article criteria:

It is reasonable well written.
the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

all inline citations are from reliable sources;

it contains no original research;

it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;

it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
It is broad in its coverage
it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
It has a neutral point of view.
it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
It is stable.
it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article. Congratulations.

Pass simongraham (talk) 22:12, 5 August 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.