Talk:National Gathering (Serbia)
National Gathering (Serbia) has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- This review is transcluded from Talk:National Gathering (Serbia)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 17:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: History6042 (talk · contribs) 19:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Criteria
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
· · · |
Discussion
All the images have acceptable copyright and all of them are captioned. History6042 (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are really the only editor contributing to this page. You can't edit war yourself so that is good. History6042 (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- The article isn't really supportive of the party or clearly against it. History6042 (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- The article follows MoS and flows well. It also covers all major points and isn't unfocused. History6042 (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Every statement that needs an inline citation has one. History6042 (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Earwig found nothing wrong with the article for copyright violations. History6042 (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- All the first ten sources seem reliable. History6042 (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Same with sources 11 through 20. History6042 (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Source 2 is correct. History6042 (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Source 3 is good as well. History6042 (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Same with 4, 5, and 6. History6042 (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- 7 is good. History6042 (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- So is 8. I think I have checked enough for a source spot check. I am going to pass this, good job. History6042 (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- 7 is good. History6042 (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Same with 4, 5, and 6. History6042 (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Source 3 is good as well. History6042 (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Source 2 is correct. History6042 (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Same with sources 11 through 20. History6042 (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- All the first ten sources seem reliable. History6042 (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Earwig found nothing wrong with the article for copyright violations. History6042 (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Every statement that needs an inline citation has one. History6042 (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- The article follows MoS and flows well. It also covers all major points and isn't unfocused. History6042 (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- The article isn't really supportive of the party or clearly against it. History6042 (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.