Talk:Milan Bandić/GA2

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 15:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Not well written:

   Bandić was also altar servant in local church. missing indefinite article.

   and he was excellent student. Likewise.

   He did manual labour jobs, like unloading of sugar and coal and he was also a mason, painting façades to pay off his student loans. "He did manual labour jobs, like unloading of sugar and coal"? "he was also a mason, painting façades" First time that I have heard of a mason painting houses. Usually they build them.

   I think I fixed this part... --Wustenfuchs 15:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

   So get a literate editor to go through the whole article, it is prsently a mess. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

   After successful finish of faculty Really, there is no point in attempting to point out every grammatical error in this shoddy piece of work. I cannot review the prose until it has been thoroughly copy-edited by someone who has some literacy skills in English.

   Fixed. --Wustenfuchs 15:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

    Not done I asked for a thorough copy-edit of the article by someone who has good English skills. The first point I queried above was Bandić was also altar servant in local church. This has been replaced by Bandić was altar servant in local church As the nominator can clearly not understand what the phrase "missing indefinite article" means, there is no point in the nominator attempting to copy-edit. The same applied to "and he was excellent student" which has not been changed. This is really insulting to reviewers who voluntarily give up their time to review. This should never have been nominated in this shoddy state.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Sources appear to be RS, statements adequately cited. I assume good faith for Croatian sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   During the Croatian War of Independence Bandić helped with logistics. A little thin, can this be expanded.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Suitably balanced.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images licensed and captioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The prose does not appear to have been improved since the last review in 2008. On hold for seven days for a thorough copy-edit. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

   As the nominator clearly does not understand English well and has demonstrated their inability to write good plain english, i am failing this nomination. Please get someone with good plain English skills to copy-edit, then take this to peer review, and then when all issues have been fixed and others consider that it meets all of the good article criteria, please re-nominate. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.