Talk:Slabinja/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 16:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@IndexAccount: - hi! I've completed my first runthrough of the GAN review. The biggest issue is the consistent grammatical errors throughout the piece. There are also a couple of uncited claims. I'd like to spend some more time assessing the reliability of the sources as well. Right now, it's not in a good place for Good Article status, but with some work it could be brought up to that point. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@IndexAccount: - I think, after considering the situation, that it makes sense for me to fail this GA review for now. That'll give you some time to make improvements and you can re-nominate after that. I think the scope of the changes needed is too much for one review. Let me know if you strongly disagree, though, and we can talk about it. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @IndexAccount:, as it's been a week without response, I'm going to fail this for now. Overall, it's a fine article - with the changes described below, it can definitely become a good article! Let me know when you renominate it. Thank you for your work on this article. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2019 (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.	Many grammatical issues - tenses, sentence construction. Needs considerable work to bring it up to GA status - particularly of note is the section on the Serbian Orthodox Church. The History section also has quite a few issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass. No issues.
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.	In 'Economy', is there a citation for this claim: "while young people mostly work in nearby cities."? Last two paragraphs of 'Transport' are uncited - would be good to have something there.
	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).	Difficult to assess reliability of sources - mostly non-English.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Few issues beyond uncited claims mentioned above.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Checked against sources and also generally. No issues. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No issues. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No issues. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass. No issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable. Most work done last June. No edit wars. Pass.
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.	Pass. No issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Pass. No issues.
	7. Overall assessment.	Does not pass. 9/20/19.