Talk:State Anti-Fascist Council for the National Liberation of Croatia/GA1

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: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 11:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

This looks an interesting article. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to review this article. In the meantime, I have requested a copyedit at the WP:GOCE/REQ and I believe the article might be copyedited shortly to address any grammar or similar issues. Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tomobe03: It is a pleasure. Thank you for the update. In that case, I will wait for the copyedit to be complete before undertaking my review to avoid unnecessary duplication. Please ping me when you would like me to take a look. simongraham (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Simongraham: The GOCE copyedit has just been completed. Could you please resume the GAR?--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Review

The article is clearly written and covers an interesting topic. It is stable, 86.4% of authorship is one user, User:Tomobe03. It is currently ranked a B class article within the Croatia, Military history and Yugoslavia Wikiprojects.

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct following WP:GOCE.

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and words to watch. For example, the article contains the word to watch popular, but used appropriately in the context.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged.

   It contains no original research.

   It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

3. It is broad in its coverage

   It addresses the main aspects of the topic.

   iI stays ffocused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

4. It has a neutral point of view

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

5. It is stable

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

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

   Images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.

   Images are (relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. The article does not include a logo in the Infobox but this is not a GA criteria.

7. Overall:

   Congratulations. This article meets the criteria to be a Good Article. I read that you are looking to take it to become Featured Article. Good luck.

   Pass/Fail: Pass -- simongraham (talk) 05:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you simongraham. Could you please list the article at the WP:GA/H, it appears that step is missing. I can update the class ratings at the talk page, but I'm not sure it would be ok for me as the nominator to list the article among GA's myself. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2021 (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.