Talk:Ministry of Justice (Soviet Union)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken on reviewing the article and will post a review shortly. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Several spelling errors are present

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Article meets MoS criteria
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
There are references to sources laid out in an appropriate section

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Citations are appropriate and are to reliable sources

C. No original research:
Article reflects the sources and adds nothing new
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
I did feel that the topic of the article was conveyed well, even with spelling errors.

B. Focused:
Article remains on topic
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Article appears neutral - following the sources closely, and not loading the article with undue praise or criticism
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Article is stable
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:
There is only one picture relating very broadly to the article.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
1. The article needs to be expanded and corrected for it to be considered for GA. While this article is a good start, and it is very important, it is not GA material. However, I am upgrading this article to B status. Also, more pictures relating to the topic need to be added.

Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment Potential

After speaking with the creator and principal editor of this article, I have decided to place this article's GA nomination on hold. Many of the mistakes I cited were not actual mistakes but information I was not familiar with. After the creator/editor of this page has made the appropriate changes, I will reassess this article. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I added two images.
I havn't found a method to link a translated version of the Russian text, but you could probably translate the text at Google translate.
All the Russian refs have a English translation of the title.
Question, those this mean that there are no serious grammer mistakes with the article?

--TIAYN (talk) 08:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really like all the revisions you have made to the article. There are no serious grammar errors, so the article looks ready for a reassessment. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
All errors have been fixed.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Article meets MoS criteria
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
There are references to sources laid out in an appropriate section

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Citations are appropriate and are to reliable sources

C. No original research:
Article reflects the sources and adds nothing new
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
I fely that the topic of the article was conveyed well.

B. Focused:
Article remains on topic
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Article appears neutral - following the sources closely, and not loading the article with undue praise or criticism
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
The new pictures are a great addition to the article.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

The article's revisions came out very well. This article meets GA standards and with a little more work could be a candidate for "A" status.

Thanks! :) --TIAYN (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear TIAYN, as a major contributor to the article, you don't have the right to assess this article. This article is effectively B class and in no way a GA. I am reassessing it as a B class R.Sivanesh ✆ 17:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't pass the article, the reviewer did..... He just forgot to sign his/her own statement. --TIAYN (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]