GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 12:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll get to this shortly.
| 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). | well cited throughout |
|
|
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. | have tweaked |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | All comments below have been addressed to my satisfaction |
Comments
- the licensing for the photographs in the collage in the infobox all appear to be ok in themselves, but the collage itself does not meet the attribution requirements of the authors of the images, and the author on the collage image should be that of the authors of the images (Denton and the other guy). To meet the requirements, they both need to be listed as the authors on the collage. Putting the collage together does not make one the author.
- Listed authors indicating who created what image specifically.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Have checked my advice with Nikkimaria, she says it was probably overkill, but better to be safe than sorry at ACR or FA if you take it that far.
- It was no trouble at all. Thanks for rechecking though.
- Have checked my advice with Nikkimaria, she says it was probably overkill, but better to be safe than sorry at ACR or FA if you take it that far.
- Listed authors indicating who created what image specifically.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've c/e'd the lead, rather than list every point in prose, style and grammar etc, I propose c/e'ing the whole article if you are happy with that?
- Of course. I'd greatly appreciate that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- It'll take a couple of days, I'm thinking. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- c/e done. These are my edits. Check I haven't changed any meanings?
- Everything seems to be in order. Thanks.
- c/e done. These are my edits. Check I haven't changed any meanings?
- It'll take a couple of days, I'm thinking. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Of course. I'd greatly appreciate that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- You need to address Ad's query about Milosevic as a commander/effective control. I've suggested using Louis Sell, p.373 - published by Duke University (see talk page). It is not necessary now, but at ACR you might need to use an academic source in addition to Sell.
- I added info, referencing Sell p.373, and an additional explanation of the mechanisms applied (including a description of the level of control described by the source as "de facto commander"), referencing Armatta p.160.
- I've checked Ad's other query about the 20,000 refugees and am satisfied that the matter is explained and cited in the text of the article. It probably wouldn't hurt to add "Serb" to "refugees" for clarity though. I suppose it might then be necessary to add "Croat" to the other refugees to maintain consistency in the infobox.
- I have no problem adding "Serb" to "refugees" as a clarification, as far as the "Croat" tag is concerned, that would be possible albeit not completely accurate. The refugees were not 100% ethnic Croats, a relatively small proportion were of other ethnicities (e.g. Hungarians). I cannot readily produce specific info on exact ethnic breakup of the refugees, so if these tags are acceptable generalisations, that's fine by me. I'll try to come up with something in that respect if necessary.
- I think it is fine, I believe Ramet might have something about the breakdown of the other refugees, I'll take a look soon.
- I have no problem adding "Serb" to "refugees" as a clarification, as far as the "Croat" tag is concerned, that would be possible albeit not completely accurate. The refugees were not 100% ethnic Croats, a relatively small proportion were of other ethnicities (e.g. Hungarians). I cannot readily produce specific info on exact ethnic breakup of the refugees, so if these tags are acceptable generalisations, that's fine by me. I'll try to come up with something in that respect if necessary.
putting it on hold while you clear up the SM issue raised by Ad.Good article, well structured and appropriate level of detail. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)- Thank you for your time and effort put into reviewing this article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- No worries, passing now. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your time and effort put into reviewing this article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)