Talk:Romania in the Middle Ages
| Romania in the Middle Ages has been listed as one of the History 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 delist it, or ask for a reassessment. | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| WikiProject Middle Ages | (Rated GA-class) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
| WikiProject Romania | (Rated GA-class) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archives |
|---|
Contents |
[edit] About the new article
Borsoka! Great job! Creditable work. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
[edit] GA Review
| Toolbox |
|---|
|
See WP:DEADREF |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Romania in the Middle Ages/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tim riley (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Comments after first read-through: mightily impressive. Detailed comments after my second read-through, but I haven't seen anything so far to stop this article from being promoted. Tim riley (talk) 10:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Images: all look fine and properly accounted for, but they lack Alt Text. This isn't a prerequisite for GA (or even FA at the moment, I believe) but is good practice, for the benefit of blind and visually-restricted users who make use of screen readers. It would be good if you could add a few words to each image caption, using "alt= description text". More later. Tim riley (talk) 12:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:

- B. MoS compliance:

- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- Well referenced
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Well referenced
- 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:
- Well illustrated
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Well illustrated
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:

- Pass or Fail:
I found this an interesting and instructive article to review. (In passing, it is, as far as I can recall, the first article I have run across at GA, peer review or FAC in which I could find absolutely no typos or other minor faults.) In my opinion this article could be a worthy candidate for WP:FAC. For the moment, however, it is a pleasure to affirm its GA-status. Tim riley (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
[edit] GA Reassessment
- This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Romania in the Middle Ages/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
The article has gone through a significant reedit since it has been reviewed. Borsoka (talk) 13:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia good articles
- Wikipedia CD Selection-GAs
- GA-Class Good articles
- History good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- GA-Class Balkan military history articles
- Balkan military history task force articles
- GA-Class Ottoman military history articles
- Ottoman military history task force articles
- GA-Class Medieval warfare articles
- Medieval warfare task force articles
- GA-Class military history articles
- GA-Class Middle Ages articles
- Unknown-importance Middle Ages articles
- GA-Class history articles
- GA-Class Romania articles
- Unknown-importance Romania articles