Talk:Branislav Djurdjev/GA1

GA Review

Passed. History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Nominator: Krisitor (talk · contribs) 19:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: History6042 (talk · contribs) 17:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. It must meet all 6 criteria to pass. History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed up some text that seemed a bit unnatural, but other than that I think this is good to go. History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm going to pass this, good job. History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.	There aren't any grammatical errors I could find that I didn't fix.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	It does.
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.	There is a reflist template.
	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).	All statements (not in the lead but it doesn't need them) have citations.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I found no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig found nothing wrong.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This covers everything I could find.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article doesn't seem overly long/detailed.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Couldn't find any biased text
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	There haven't been any reverts since January 5, 2024.
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.	The images all seem good and the only one that's copyrighted has a good fair use rational.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	They also all have 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.