Talk:Croatia national football team/GA1

GA Review

First impressions

Commencing review. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely no problems with any of the five "quickfail" criteria. The article is very interesting and I'm looking forward to the in-depth study. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I see that the article has been to FAR three times this year and, although it failed each time, it is obvious that the review comments were taken on board and a lot of effort went into meeting the requirements ahead of future reviews, particularly by User:Domiy, who deserves a lot of credit.

Given that the article has been improved to meet FAR criteria, it is moving towards a standard that exceeds the criteria for GAR. My comments against each of the GAR criteria are as follows:

1a. Well written with clear prose, correct spelling and grammar. It is a very readable account and I have no problems. It is just something to keep an eye as it moves back to FA. Pass.

1b. Complies with MoS. Apart from references, this is where most of the problems at FAR have arisen but the MoS requirements for GA are more relaxed. I've no problems with the layout or the lead. It avoids jargon and other dubious expressions. Fiction and list are not applicable. Pass.

2a. References. The biggie at FAR but with all the work that has been done post-FAR, I can see no problems for GA purposes. I think there are perhaps more online references than I would like as I prefer to see book sources but that is just a personal view. Pass.

2b. Reliable sources. I think enough has been done for GA purposes though I think some more work might be needed here ahead of the next FAR: best to make sure that all previous FAR concerns have been addressed. Pass.

2c. No OR. I don't believe this is applicable. Pass.

3a. Main aspects addressed. Definitely. The scope is very wide and I particularly like the attention given to Croatia's earlier football history. Pass.

3b. Focus. I'd say the level of detail is about right throughout and I certainly didn't feel that I was being bored by the minutiae of recent events as is often the case. A very well balanced article. I think it scores highly in terms of criteria 3. Pass.

4. Neutrality. No problems. Pass.

5. Stability. No problems. Pass.

6a. Image copyright. Seems okay to me. No problems. Pass.

6b. Image relevance. They are all relevant and they enhance the article very well without becoming intrusive or overbearing. A good selection. Pass.

I can therefore sum up in one word. Pass. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 10:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Thank you very much BlackJack! I don't know if this is the correct place to ask for feedback, but I will take a shot :) What exactly is the problem with the references? The main concerns at FAC were reliability at times, but some reviewers did say something about incorrectly formatted references or something, and I really don't understand what they mean. I have used all the correct templates for each type of different reference. Some issues were just present in confusion about which publisher names should be in italics etc. But other than that, what else is visibly wrong with them? Domiy (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)