Talk:Peter II (cat)/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

Reviewer: Voorts (talk · contribs) 14:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

First assessment

First assessment forthcoming. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Assessment completed. This passes. If an image of Peter II ever becomes available or a free use photograph of the Cenotaph from the mid-1940s is available, I would change out the current image for either of those, but I'm not going to hold up the GA for a search for images. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   Looks good after copy edit.

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Looks good after copy edit.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   Has a reference section. Although archive links are not necessary to meet GA criteria, it is best practice to include archive URLs.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   Checked all sources except for the book cited, for which I will AGF.

   c. (OR):

   No synth.

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Used Earwig's tool.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   As the nominator noted, Peter II was short-lived and I couldn't turn up any additional sources via a search of TWL.

   b. (focused):

   Per 3a, the article goes into all of the detail it can.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No bias.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Checked page history and talk page.

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

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   Image copyright is fine.

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Caption edited.

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

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.