Jump to content

Talk:Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Danielyng (talk · contribs) 20:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I am notifying you of my intentions to start reviewing this Article for Good Article status. Expect a full review to be out in a week at most, probably either tomorrow or Friday. Danielyng (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Danielyng, Hi, thanks for your review. But redlinks are not part of the GA criteria. The ones in this article meet the requirement in WP:REDYES. (t · c) buidhe 22:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Passed, then. Thanks! Danielyng (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


REVIEW ON NAZIS AND NAZI COLLABORATORS (PUNISHMENT)

[edit]

INITIAL THOUGHTS

[edit]

My initial thoughts are that this is a well-written article, including ample citations w/o original research, but there are a lot of Red Links, which I would recommend clearing up.

INITIAL SUGGESTIONS:
[edit]
  1. Clear up the Red Links

CRITERIA

[edit]

Well written:

the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[

Verifiable with no original research:

it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
it contains no original research; and
it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

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).

Neutral:

it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable:

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

Illustrated: if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

CRITERIA REVIEW

[edit]

Well Written: The prose of the Article is clear, and well written. It is understandable for a broad audience.

VERIFIABLE WITH NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH

[edit]

The information is sourced from reputable institutions. There is no original research.

BROAD IN ITS COVERAGE

[edit]

The article addresses the main aspects of the topic and stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

STABLE

[edit]

No edit warring going on.

ILLUSTRATED =

[edit]

Illustrated with ample amount of media.

NEUTRAL

[edit]

The article is Neutral.

FINAL RESULT =

[edit]

Danielyng (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]