Talk:Juan Bielovucic/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 00:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tomobe, I'll be glad to take this one. Comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks as always for your contributions; I'll be looking forward to reading it. Khazar2 (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, I've made some tweaks and small fixes as I went. I only see a few small issues on my initial pass that I couldn't immediately resolve--let me know your thoughts:

"Most sources refer to him as Jean or Juan Bielovucic, while others refer to him as Juan or Jean Bielovucic Cavalié. In Croatia he is known as Ivan Bjelovučić." -- this should probably be in the body of the article somewhere rather than the lead.
"and the Pacific Ocean" -- this makes it sound as if he crossed it-- is there a way to phrase this better ("part of the Pacific Ocean"? "a bit of the..."?)

Checklist[edit]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	~~See minor clarity points above.~~ Spotchecks of English and French sources show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	~~Minor lead issue per above.~~
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Comparison to Google Books sources indicates main aspects are well covered here.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA

Thank you very much for taking up the review. I tried to address your concerns. Could you please revisit those parts of the article to see if the new development is satisfactory?--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that does it--thanks for the quick response. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]