Talk:Lithuanian Civil War (1389–1392)/GA1

GA Review

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA, and should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • In the lead and again in the "Background" section you have "easter egg" links where you link the first civil war to a set of words that hint at what the link is, but don't directly state it. This is discouraged by MOS. My suggestion would be to reword both instances to something like "in the first Lithuanian Civil War of 1381 to 1384..."
   • In the "Peace treaty" section you say "By summer Vytautas had secured the release of many of the hostages, and he accepted the offer." I think you mean the hostages held by the knights, but I'm not sure. Could you clarify this please?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • In the "1391-1392" section, the last sentence of the last paragraph needs a ref.
   • In the "Peace treaty" section, the last sentence of the second paragraph and the whole third paragraph need references.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • The caption for the image in the "1389-1390" section is very long. Because captions are supposed to be concise, could this information (with its reference) be moved into the body of the article so that the caption can be shortened?

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall, this is a great article that gives a nice picture of what appears to be a fairly complicated war with intricately shifting alliances. I am putting the article on hold to allow time to deal with the few minor points I have raised above. If you have questions, you can contact me here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe I fixed all the comments:

1. "Easter eggs" fixed.
2. Hostages were clarified by Novickas
3. Two references added; the last paragraph removed as I do not think it's quite relevant.
4. The caption was fixed by Novickas

So I would think we are in the clear. Renata (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks good, so I'm going to pass the article. Nice job! Dana boomer (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Great! Thank you for such a quick response. Renata (talk) 02:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)