Talk:Battle of Torvioll/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Canadian Paul 00:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article in the near future, hopefully tomorrow. Canadian Paul 00:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

...and here it is!

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

1. Under "Background", you should introduce who John Huyandi is when you bring him up for the first time, to provide the requisite context for the reader. For example, "Hungarian general John Hunyadi's continued operations..."
2. Same concern with Ali Pasha in the "Prelude" section... the body should be written under the assumption that the reader has not read the lead, since, per WP:LEAD, the lead should not be introducing facts that are not present in the body of the article.
3. Also per above, I feel that the the lead gives a bit more in-depth background that is not present in the body of the article. Again, per WP:LEAD, anything in the lead should also be in the body. For example, there's no context in the body about the death of Skanderbeg's father or the son's motive to reclaim the father's lands. Same with some of the aftermath material about Skanderberg's later career.

And that's really about it! A very nice read and I got through it fairly quick to boot! I am going to put the article on hold for a period of up to seven days so that changes can be made. I'm always open to discussion, so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up in real life, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 02:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Paul. Thanks for taking the time to review this article. I'm glad you liked it. I understand if you don't have time as I also have this issue. I also understand your concerns and tried to address them. I see that the lead was a bit overdone since I wrote it before the body, so I tried to restructure it. How do my revisions look?--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Everything looks good now, and I also like that there was an effort made to address the other concerns in the section above. Nice work! I'll be passing the article as a GA now. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Canadian Paul 16:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review!--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)