Talk:Liberum veto/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 18:49, 28 September 2013 (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):

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):

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:

Comments

In "Origins": I don't think "overrulement" is a word. Instead, I'd say "the veto was still occasionally overruled", or something like that.

In "Zenith", that last paragraph is too short. You should either expand it or combine it with the other paragraph.

In "Final years", "the foreigner powers" should just be "foreign powers".

The "In popular culture" section is way too short to be a section. Could it be combined with "Modern parallels" somehow?

The "Modern parallels" section should be in paragraph form, not disjointed sentences.

References and See also look fine.

The image you have is good. Another would be nice, if you can find something appropriate, but it's certainly not necessary.

That's it for my first pass. I'll have another look after you get through these. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

@User:Coemgenus: Tried to address most of the issues raised, through there's little I can add. I think that the slightly expanded short para at zenith should be fine now. Here are my edits. (I also removed one unreferenced para I missed previously). What do you think? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, that looks good. I'm going to give it one last copyedit before I pass it. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

One last nit-pick: Dalibor Roháč is mentioned out of the blue. It might help the reader to say "Historian Dalibor Roháč..." or something [if he is an historian, that is].

Also: is that Veto card game available in English? It looks like fun! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

@User:Coemgenus: Seems he is more of a political scientist, added the info. Linked him and Veto, which has an article on pl wiki; sadly the game is only available in Polish and its doubtful it would get translated. It was popular enough in Poland to get a few expansions and such, but I am not sure who outside Poland (and Lithuania/Ukraine) would care for its historical theme - at least enough to warrant the investment :/ --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me: passed. --Coemgenus (talk) 09:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)