Talk:Order of Karađorđe's Star/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 10:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this one. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	the lead section doesn't mention that many if not all of the awards made by Peter II as govt-in-exile were controversial, as they were made to Axis collaborators. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Happy with the changes. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.	The claim for Milunka Savic needs to be attributed in the way it was in her article. Happy with the wording now. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	a significant issue here is the lack of information about awards made by Peter II. Nothing but a mention that awards were made. Given the 45 years or so, some mention of who was awarded it and when would be appropriate, and lack thereof would be a basis for a fail of the article as a whole. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] this just squeaks in on this criteria. If brought to Milhist A-Class Review without any information on awards during the Cold War by the family, I'd say it might fail there on comprehensiveness. However, having reconsidered, I believe this criteria is just met. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
	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.	~~Placing on hold for seven days for outstanding point~~s to be addressed ~~Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)~~Passing Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: I couldn't find any info re: Orders awarded during the Cold War. 23 editor (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've reconsidered. See above. Passing. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wasn't planning on nominating it for ACR, but I will most certainly delve into some Serbo-Croatian sources in the meantime to see if this can be addressed. Texts and other resources available online have turned up nothing. 23 editor (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]