Talk:Siege of Bjelovar Barracks
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Peacemaker67 in topic GA Review
![]() | Siege of Bjelovar Barracks has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: December 20, 2014. (Reviewed version). |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Siege of Bjelovar Barracks article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Broken citation links/overlinking/dashes
editThere are a couple of broken citation links, Žabec 28 May 2011 and Bjelajac & Žunec 2009, p. 247. There are also several overlinked words, small arms, general, and Anton Tus. Ran a dash script. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Fixed now. Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Siege of Bjelovar Barracks/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 07:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
| |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
| |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
| |
7. Overall assessment. |
Sorry about the delay. Just returned from a business trip. I expect to address the remaining issues tomorrow or over the weekend at the latest if that's ok. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- No prob. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your patience. I had a go at the remaining issues, so could you please take another look? Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- No worries, RL always gets in the way... Yet another excellent addition to the Croatian War of Independence series. Well done, as usual. I suggest you take some of these to Milhist ACR, happy to help you decide which ones would be best to kick off with, just let me know if you'd like some advice on it? Also happy to keep a weather eye on reviews to guide them through and make edits if you are unsure about a prose issue or two. You'll find Dank is great with c/eing nominated articles, which usually smooths the path. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your patience. I had a go at the remaining issues, so could you please take another look? Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)