Talk:Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 21:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Surtsicna, I will begin my comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments in the meantime! -- Caponer (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Surtsicna, you've authored a very comprehensive, well-written, and thoroughly researched article. Upon my review, I find that your article meets Good Article criteria, but I did have a few recommendations and suggestions that I'd like you to address before passing. Most of them are with regard to the lede. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime! Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Lede

• "He desperately tried to secure help from Pope Pius II, King Matthias Corvinus of Hungary and other neighbouring countries." In this sentence, it is stated that Stephen sought assistance from two monarchs, and other neighboring countries. Would it be more consistent to say other neighboring monarchs? ...or other neighboring leaders? Or if the countries are more notable, you could say he sought assistance from the Papal States, Hungary, and other neighboring countries. I'll leave it up to you on how best to remedy this.
  • Modified accordingly. -- Caponer (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede should be a comprehensive summary of all an article's parts, therefore, I suggest adding more content from the "Assessment and legacy" section, perhaps expounding upon your final sentence regarding the fall of Bosnia to the Ottomans.
• With those minor exceptions, I find that your lede to this article summarizes the majority of the article's prose, so I have no other suggestions for this section.
  • This section is good to go upon final re-review. -- Caponer (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Name

• This section is thoroughly referenced and well-written. I find that it clearly meets GA guidelines and have no further suggestions.
  • This section is good to go upon final re-review. -- Caponer (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Family

• Per WP:CITEDENSE, internal citations should usually be reserved for the end of a sentence, even though I understand your rationale for placing an internal citation after a comma within a sentence. This isn't a deal breaker, but something to be mindful of. This is in reference to the last sentence in the second paragraph.
  • As this is only a suggestion, the inline citations can remain in their current locations of the sentence. -- Caponer (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
• As was the "Name" section, this section is thoroughly referenced and well-written. I find that it clearly meets GA guidelines and have no further suggestions.
  • This section is good to go upon final re-review. -- Caponer (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Marriage Despotism Kingship Assessment and legacy

• All the above sections are also beautifully written, and their inline citations are plentiful and verifiable. I've spent most of my review going through the internal citations and those texts that are available online. Again, I'd try where possible to consolidate inline citations and place them at the end of the sentences.
  • This section is good to go upon final re-review. -- Caponer (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

GAN Status

Caponer, Surticna has not edited on Wikipedia since January 11, four days before you started the review. Since it's been a month and a half since you posted your review, I think it's clear that the article isn't likely to change. You'll either have to accept the article as it is, make any needed changes yourself, or fail it—and from your comment above, the first is more likely than the last. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, thank you for the ping! I will make the updates myself in the next day or two. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Surtsicna, as there were only minor corrections and suggestions, I've modified the article and find that it meets good article status upon final re-review. I hope you come back to Wikipedia soon and write another fantastic article soon. BlueMoonset, thank you for our attention to this review. -- Caponer (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)