Talk:Orhogbua
Add topicAppearance
Latest comment: 2 months ago by Alexeyevitch in topic GA review
| Orhogbua has been listed as one of the History 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. Review: May 20, 2026. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GA review
[edit]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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Orhogbua/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Vanderwaalforces (talk · contribs) 17:18, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
Reviewer: Alexeyevitch (talk · contribs) 22:15, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Hi. I'll review this as part of GARC. Alexeyevitch(talk) 22:15, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
| 1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
| |
| 1b. 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, as shown by a source spot-check: | ||
| 2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
| |
| 2b. 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). |
| |
| 2c. it contains no original research. |
| |
| 2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
| |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
| 3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
| |
| 3b. 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: | ||
| 6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
| |
| 6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
| |
| 7. Overall assessment. | ||
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.
Categories:
- Wikipedia good articles
- History good articles
- GA-Class Nigeria articles
- High-importance Nigeria articles
- GA-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- GA-Class Africa articles
- Low-importance Africa articles
- WikiProject Nigeria articles
- WikiProject Africa articles
- GA-Class military history articles
- GA-Class biography (military) articles
- Military biography work group articles
- GA-Class African military history articles
- African military history task force articles
- GA-Class Early Modern warfare articles
- Early Modern warfare task force articles
- GA-Class history articles
- Low-importance history articles
- WikiProject History articles


