Talk:National Council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 16:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 15:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

This looks an interesting article and, on a cursory inspection, close to meeting the Good Article criteria already. I will start my review shortly. simongraham (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Overall, the standard of the article is high.
• It is of substantial length, with 1,594 words of readable prose.
• The lead is appropriately long at 255 words.
• Authorship is 92.4% from the nominator with contributions from 8 other editors.
• It is currently assessed as a B class article

Criteria

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written.

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

   • The writing is clear and appropriate.
   • Suggest adding a comma after "vice-president" in "vice-president Svetozar Pribićević".
   • Consider adding a comma after "In the aftermath of the events".
   • Suggest "required a quorum of more than half of its members" rather than "required quorum of more than a half of its members".
   • I can see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

   • It seems to comply with the Manuals of Style.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   • A reference section is included, with sources listed.

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   • Citations are from books produced by credible publishers, academic journals and specialist works in the Croatian State Archives.

   it contains no original research;

   • All relevant statements have inline citations.
   • Spot checks confirm Banac, 1984, Lampe, 2000 and Pavlowitch, 2014. AGF for the works in Croatian.

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;

   • Earwig gives a 15.3% chance of copyright violation but the only matches seem to be the titles of books.

3. It is broad in its coverage

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

   • The article seems comprehensive.

   it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

   • The article seems well balanced, including items from non-English sources.

4. It has a neutral point of view.

   it seems to represent viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

5. It is stable.

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

   • There is no evidence of edit wars.

6. 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;

   • Austria-Hungary map new.svg has an appropriate PD tag but the factual accuracy is disputed.
   • Session of Sabor.jpg and lacks US PD tags.
   • SHS 1918 adresa Aleksandru.jpg has a relevant CC tag.

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

   • The images are appropriate. Although not a GA criteria, suggest adding ALT text for accessibility.

@Tomobe03: Thank you for an interesting article. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Simongraham: Thank you for taking time to review this article.

1. I have implemented the suggested changes to the prose above.
2. I have checked publication date for the Session of Sabor image and found it was 15 Nov 1918, i.e. well out of copyright - and added appropriate PD tags accordingly.
3. As regards the factual accuracy dispute tag associated with the Austria-Hungary map, the relevant Commons talk page indicates that the complaint (posted in 2016) objects to displaying individual constituent elements of Cisleithania and Transleithania displayed on the map and argues that it would be more logical to present Cisleithania and Transleithania as solid blocks. It would appear that the complainant meant that since Cisleithania and Transleithania were the uppermost level division of Austria-Hungary it would be more logical to show that division, instead of lower-level divisions of the two, further arguing that individual subdivisions were not subordinated to Vienna in the same way/level. In my view, the map is accurate and useful in its present form regardless of the depth of subordination of the subdivisions to the central government because it serves as a usable location map for reference. The caption already included in the article and in the Commons page clearly state which subdivisions belong to Cisleithania and which belong to Transleithania. Since the map is intended for a geographic reference, I believe it is appropriate in its current form, it is not misleading, and details on Austro-Hungarian administrative subdivisions need not be included in this article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tomobe03: That seems reasonable. Thank you for all your work. I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 04:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

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.