Talk:Wallachian Revolution of 1848
Latest comment: 14 years ago by 131.188.3.21 in topic Ethnic Cleansing by Avram Iancu and his forces
 | Wallachian Revolution of 1848 has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
.svg)
Good article review edit
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Hmm, military history. Something I've never really reviewed or looked at before. However, I must say it looks good and should be of Featured quality in a short time. By all means, try for Featured Article Candidates. This article does pass Good Article quality as it meets the requirements.Mitch32contribs 23:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Ethnic Cleansing by Avram Iancu and his forces edit
Does anyone have english data about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edipqe (talk • contribs) 11:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have already answered on another page, so please stay focused. I also see absolutely no sense in having this discussion here - neither the controversy nor the sources have any relevancy on this page. Dahn (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't understand. Where do they have relevancy then, if not on this page? --131.188.3.21 (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)