Talk:Eastern Bloc/GA1

GA Review

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

I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

No problems found when checking against quick fail criteria, on to main review. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • The article is reasonably well written

   b (MoS):

   • I don't think the Lead adequately summarises such a complex article.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • One dead link found, ref #21 ; other links fixed using WP:CHECKLINKS. ...followed by a Soviet annexation of roughly the same eastern Finnish territories as the prior interim peace treaty as part of the Karelo-Finnish Soviet Socialist Republic. has a citation needed tag. I note that some of the citation styles are inconsistent, eg. ref 68 & 73;

   updated. n

   Citation need tag still outstanding. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • Sources appear reliable - I assume good faith for those that I cannot access.

   c (OR):

3. It is broad in its scope.

   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):

   • It would be good to have a little more detail in the captions of leaders rather than just the name.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • A few relatively minor point, apart from the lead which needs more work. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
   • Lead is still inadequate, citation needed tag not addressed, so not listing at this time. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)