Talk:Pact of Steel/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Herald (talk · contribs) 08:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The review will be completed in a couple of days. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 08:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status – Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) 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:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

1. B. Focused:

2. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

3. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

4. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

5. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments and discussion

• The article is reasonably good and is well written. I still have a slight concern on the length of it. Just a bit less than 5kb of prose for such a good pact, fells like unbelievable. A good amount of expansion is required in background and dissolution section. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 09:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Done Have expanded the sections in question. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• Cites are good enough but more will be appreciated, specially those of online. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 09:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Done Have added three more academic sources to the article and replaced them with the online ones where I could. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• A slight excerpt from WikiSource is expected which had an influence of political fields and make this pact a notable one. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 09:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Done Good call. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• Cite 1 and 9 are extensively used and must be replaced by a reliable one. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 09:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Not done Actually, the television documentaries in question are considered reliable. They are produced by World Media Rights and written by Benjamin Schwarz, notable American historian with a B.A. and an M.A. in history from Yale University.
• Footnotes are expected. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 09:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, could you be more detailed or specific? I don't understand what you mean by "Footnotes are expected"? Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The Herald, thank you very much for taking on the review. As I'm a night owl almost to the point of being a vampire, I just woke up and won't have time to edit the article according your points until approximately 6-8 hours later today. I will, however, make an effort to expand and improve the article then. Thanks again for taking on the review. :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 12:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The Herald, I have responded and made edits according your comments. Please let me know if there is anything else. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I mean, more footnotes/notes are expected, though they are not mandatory. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 07:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The Herald, sorry, but I still don't understand what you're saying! Do you mean I should include a footnotes section and add a note somewhere in the article? Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 13:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Exactly... plus, ping me not every time..-The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, I've added a footnote. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 15:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Dissolution section's first line requires a merge with the others. A better English, I say.. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 16:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It's done, The Herald. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 16:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Result

..It's a pass here. The article meets the GA requirements and is literally a good article..-The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 08:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)