Talk:Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand/GA2

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

 * This article has the initial appearance of being a good article in so far as it appears to be well referenced and well illustrated; but this is not my final decision.

Pyrotec (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect that it might make GA-status this time round, so I'm slowly making my way through the article section by section, starting at Background, and leaving my review of the WP:lead until last.
 * At this stage I will mostly be highlighting "problems" and/or suggesting (non mandatory) improvements. So if I don't comment very much on a particular section/subsection here, that probably means that I regard it as satisfactory. This will take a day or so, but I hope to have it completed by or before Monday. I will then produce an Overall summary.


 * Background -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC) - It might to helpful to clarify the term "the Great Powers" (my quotes, not the article's).
 * DoneWerchovsky (talk) 08:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC) - The final sentence of the second paragraph, particularly the claims inside the brackets (or braces, if you prefer) is unreferenced. A citation (or citations) should be provided.
 * The final sentence of the 2nd paragraph does not have brackets but I believe I have done what you wanted.Werchovsky (talk) 08:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes it was the one before the final sentence. Pyrotec (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC) - The third paragraph (starting: "The new dynasty was more nationalistic, more friendly to Russia and less friendly to Austria-Hungary.[4] Over the next decade ...") is unreferenced apart from the first sentence. A citation (or citations) should be provided.
 * Done.Werchovsky (talk) 08:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC) - The last but one paragraph regarding Franz Ferdinand (claims that he was an advocat of, and seen as a threat to) is unreferenced. A citation (or citations) should be provided.
 * Done.Werchovsky (talk) 08:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Preliminaries -
 * Planning direct action & Franz Ferdinand chosen -
 * These subsections look OK.


 * The Tunnel & Eve of the attacks -
 * These subsections look OK.


 * Assassination -
 * Stopping for now. To be continued..... Pyrotec (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The first four subsections look OK.


 * Aftermath -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC) - This subsection is unreferenced. The first paragraph needs citations.
 * Done.Werchovsky (talk) 08:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Trials and punishment -
 * This section looks OK.


 * Controversy about responsibility -
 * "Black Hand" or Serbian military intelligence? -
 * Most of the first paragraph is unreferenced. It contains a number of statements that appear to be direct quotations. The necessary citations should be provided.
 * This is somewhat problematic. Much of the material is covered elsewhere in the article.  I added a footnote.  I would like to add a link to http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Constitution_of_the_Black_Hand but do not know how to do it.Werchovsky (talk) 08:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you mean as a ref, the easiest way is to use the template cite web, i.e. . (This can be copied, but remove the "nowiki" code at each end; and replace with "ref").There is a "problem" in that it is a wiki (as is wikipedia) that can be edited by anyone, so it is not regarded as a WP:Reliable Source.  But it can be quoted nevertheless. Pyrotec (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Milan Ciganović -
 * The second paragraph needs citations.
 * The Milan Ciganovic material is scattered. I will need a little time to pull it together.Werchovsky (talk) 08:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:Lead -
 * Probably OK, but a bit more detail would not go amiss.
 * The lead was kept short because the subject is so controversial that any summing up ends up being challenged. For the same reason, in the article, it is necessary to talk about the evidence of what happened rather than just talking about what happened.Werchovsky (talk) 08:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Overall the article appears to be compliant with WP:WIAGA, but there are a few paragraphs that need citations. I'm therefore put the review On Hold. Once these points have been addressed I'll award GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing a well-referenced and informative GA. Pyrotec (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)