Talk:Croatia–Hungary relations/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 00:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Minor details

I've done a thorough reading of the article and have gone through most of the sources, and the article looks to be sound. I appreciate the breadth of topics that are included in this article that go beyond just the basic politics and history. There are just a few minor details that need to be sorted out before I can pass this article:

• I believe there should be a name for the source that is given in Ref #8. If anything, the name of the website should be given.

• Right. There was one in, but that particular citation parameter contained a typo causing the name not to appear - that's fixed now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• I don't understand Ref #37 because there is not enough information given. I don't know if it is even necessary since Ref #36 seems to cover it.

• A missing cite parameter is now added, and the cite updated.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• The weblink for Ref #45 appears to be citing a book from 1911. If this is true, then I believ the book source should be cited along with the website that is hosting the information.

• I redid the citation - citing the book. Since the Google books does not offer a preview of the text, I retained a link to the previously used source as a lay summary link.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll put the article on hold until these are taken care of. Thanks! --Tea with toast (話) 02:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article. I hope all your concerns are addressed appropriately.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Final review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

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

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Thanks for taking care of those citations!

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This is a very well researched article; I can't think of anything else you might add. It has been a pleasure to review this article. Thanks for your effort. --Tea with toast (話) 01:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)