Jump to content

Talk:Land reform in interwar Yugoslavia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References and citations

[edit]

Reference no. 76: "Thomson 1993, p. 842" doesn't point to any citation. Governor Sheng (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a typo. It's Thompson. Good catch.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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:Land reform in interwar Yugoslavia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 10:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: EF5 (talk · contribs) 17:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll be reviewing this shortly. :) EF5 17:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    No issues prose-wise, it's written pretty good and has an appropriate amount of sections. I didn't see any weasel words.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    The entire article is cited appropriately, and all references are to books. The references are also formatted properly, with page numbers and such. I saw no significant plagiarism.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Talks about the background of the process, implementation, etc., so no issues here.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    As above, no weasel words or undue claims that I could find.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    There is no vandalism in the page's edit history so far, so good here.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Article has seven images, all of which are tagged properly and have appropriate captions.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Good job! Usually I have comments, but I really couldn't find anything that needed improvement. :) EF5 19:40, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.

GA review query

[edit]

@EF5 Just to check, did you do a spot-check of the sources? Your review didn't explicitly say if you did or not, so I'm just making sure to be safe! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to a single source used, so I had to AGF. EF5 20:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]