Talk:Croatian National Guard/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 16:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Guess I'll take this one for review too :) Initial comments up shortly... Dana boomer (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2014 (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, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • I've made a few copyedits. As always, feel free to revert any you disagree with.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • While the information about the staffing, equipping and legislative history of the Guard is great, my biggest question when reading the article was: did they actually fight anyone? Other than the brief partial sentence "Following the capture of substantial stocks of weapons during the Battle of the Barracks," (which doesn't even specify that it was the Guard that captured the weapons), there is no mention of battles that they participated in, whether they won or lost, what their losses were, etc. There doesn't need to be detailed accounts of each battle, but something along the lines of "In August, the Guard participated in the Battle of XYZ. They won a decisive victory over the JNA, although they lost eight men in the course of the battle." or whatever the actual battles/results/casualties were would be sufficient.

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall good, but see the comment above about content. Dana boomer (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and the excellent remark. I have added now the requested information. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Great! The new section is exactly what I was looking for. Everything now looks good, so I am passing the article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)