Talk:April 23, 1998, Albanian–Yugoslav border ambush/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Dawnseeker2000 (talk · contribs) 18:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'll be reviewing this article starting sometime today or tomorrow. Thanks, Dawnseeker2000  18:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

GA checklist

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This is a nicely-arranged article that is a good read
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Section comments
I have read the article and have made several minor copy edits, but I am completely unfamiliar with the Balkans and the content of the article. To start with though, my initial impression is that the writing is very good, so I think most of what I'll be doing on this one is citation verification.

On that note, and keeping in mind that I am totally unfamiliar with the subject, I have done spot checks on the online sources and I've found that the content that's written aligns nicely with the sources. The refs are considered reliable and are formatted in compliance with the manual of style. I'm really only able to say positive things about this article. It's neutral and balanced and the presentation is great: nice full paragraphs, a tidy infobox, and adequate sources.

After reading the article and comparing what the sources say, all I really have to offer is a possible internal link to add in the Clash section. 23 editor, I think it will be fine to mark this as a good article. Great work!


 * Infobox
 * The infobox is uncluttered and has a free image that gives the reader a perfect sense of the terrain at the location of the incident.


 * Lead
 * This section adequately previews the content of the article


 * Background
 * In the first sentence where it says "which by then was just a rump federation". I had to look this up, but found that the usage is perfect in this manner. Entry #3


 * Clash
 * I think the writing conveys what is being said very well and is neither overly-wordy or too concise. We might want to link Artillery.


 * Aftermath
 * No comments on this section. The writing looks good here as well.

Excellent. Thanks for the review! 23 editor (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)