Talk:Gheorghe Pop de Băsești

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gheorghe Pop de Băsești/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 14:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Basic GA criteria

1. Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
2. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
3. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
4. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
5. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch (e.g., "awesome" and "stunning").
6. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
7. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
8. Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations – not applicable.
9. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
10. All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
11. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
12. No original research.
13. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
14. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
15. Neutral.
16. Stable.
17. Illustrated, if possible.
18. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

For reviews, I use the above list of criteria as a benchmark and complete the variables as I go along. Hope to provide some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I've checked the many images in use and they all seem satisfactory to me in terms of usage. They enhance and illustrate the article very well. I'm also satisfied with the neutrality aspect. I'd like to study the narrative and sources again, and should then be able to complete most if not all of the remaining criteria. Hope to do that shortly. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Mentatus, I'm well satisfied. This is one of the best articles I've read for some time. I think it has the potential to become an FA: it would need some fine-tuning in the narrative and perhaps a little bit more content in the lead. As far as GA is concerned, though, it sails through. A very good historical study of someone who is little known outside his native country but deserves global fame. Well done. All the best and take care. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)