Talk:Istro-Romanians/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 16:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basic GA criteria

Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch (e.g., "awesome" and "stunning").
Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations – not applicable.
All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
No original research.
No copyright violations or plagiarism.
Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
Neutral.
Stable.
Illustrated, if possible.
Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

For reviews, I use the above list of criteria as a benchmark and complete the variables as I go along. Hope to provide some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

There are just a few comments but nothing of any significance. I could see as soon as I had scanned the article that it was going to pass GA and so I decided to think about a future FA nomination if you are interested in going for that, which I recommend.

1. Some minor tweaks of wording were needed but I've done these myself.

2. There are some redlinks and it's worth pointing out that, subject to notability, articles about the subjects should be created in the near future.

Sure thing, in fact this page had more red links about locations, but I created them all except Dubašnica (which as far as I remember, is no longer populated but I'm not sure).

3. I see that there are several WP articles relating to places which have Brdo in the name but I assume none of them are about the region and hamlet in Istria? I was curious as to why Brdo is unlinked.

Since Brdo was just an Italian frazione during the interwart period, I didn't consider it necessary to create a page, but there is enough material and I guess I could create it.

4. A lot of sentences begin with "However," and you might wish to moderate this if going to FAR because some people would question it. It's one of those minor "correct English" issues as there are those who insist that "however" should only be used mid-sentence to introduce a clause.

Yeah, I've noticed I use too much "however" or similar words.

5. I assume from words like "recognized" that you are writing in American English although there is no style designation. I haven't checked this fully but, for FAR purposes, please make sure that spellings are consistently American.

This article is not written in any specific type of English, but I will take that into account.

6. The previous point also relates to dates. You had used 27 October 1887 for the date of a newspaper but that is British style. American style is October 27, 1887. I was going to amend that one but it isn't necessary for GA. For FA, you need to ensure consistency throughout.

7. One feature of the article that I particularly like is the use of maps. These are excellent reference points.

GA criteria

GACR #1a – very well written: clear, concise, interesting, understandable and highly readable; no problems with grammar, linkage, spelling or syntax.
GACR #1b – the lead provides an excellent intoduction to and summary of the article; layout is good; no problems with words used,
GACR #2a – reference list is as expected and well presented.
GACR #2b – all sources appear to be reliable and potential challenges to content seem unlikely.
GACR #2c – no evidence of original research.
GACR #2d – no apparent violations.
GACR #3a – completely within scope.
GACR #3b – lengthy but by no means overlong and each section is handled as a broad summary.
GACR #4 – neutral; no POV issues.
GACR #5 – stable.
GACR #6a – media are all seemingly fair use at least and no problems are evident
GACR #6b – entirely suitable and are indeed informative; captions are fine.

Result

An excellent article that easily passes GA and should be nominated for FA in due course. Well done. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this article could become a FA, but I will consider nominating it in the future. Thanks! Super Ψ Dro 11:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]