Talk:Treaties of Rome (1941)
 | Treaties of Rome (1941) has been listed as one of the History 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: February 12, 2021. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Treaties of Rome (1941)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 15:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'll be happy to do this review. Back soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Basic GA criteria
edit- GACR#1a. Well written: the prose is clear, concise and understandable.
- GACR#1a. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
- GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
- GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
- GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
- GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for linking.
- GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
- GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable
- GACR#2a. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
- GACR#2b. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
- GACR#2b. All inline citations are from reliable sources.
- GACR#2b. All quotations are cited and their usage complies with MOS guidelines.
- GACR#2c. No original research.
- GACR#2d. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
- GACR#3. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
- GACR#4. Neutral (NPOV).
- GACR#5. Stable.
- GACR#6a. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.
- GACR#6b. Images are relevant to the topic with appropriate captions.
I'll be using this list to complete the review. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I've read this twice now and what can I say except that it is an excellent piece of work. It could of course be expanded and you could make tweaks in order to fine-tune it but it ticks all of the boxes above (except the two that are inapplicable) and I'm promoting it to GA without further ado. I like the images and the layout, but most of all it is a very interesting narrative from which I've learned quite a lot. Congratulations. All the best and stay safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking time to review this article. Cheers --Tomobe03 (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Marjan Flag
editI have described the flag flown on Marjan as "Partisan flag" instead of "Yugoslav flag" as previously indicated (and claimed by the Bundesarchiv description of the item at the Commons) because of the possibility that the descritopn might be incorrect. Drago Gizdić in "Dalmacija 1943" [1] p. 650 notes there was a flag of Croatia (with a red star) hoisted on Marjan in September 1943 until after the city was abandoned by the Partisans. Since Gizdić does not say this was the only flag, but also says nothing on any other flags there, I believe such a description is proper - as it describes who hoisted the flag - until sources directly supporting one or the other turn up. The exact identity of the flag beyond this does nothing to enhance understanding of this particular article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)