Talk:Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus/GA1

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

I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment
 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
 * 4) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 5) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 2) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

No problems found when checking against quick fail criteria, moving on to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * b (MoS):
 * The Wikilinks on the author names in the references do not link to the cited works, but rather to the article as a whole so they should be removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * ref #49 is dead; otherwise the article is well referenced. ✅
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * References check out.
 * c (OR):
 * I find no evidence of this. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):
 * b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The article achieves a NPOV. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * Minor vandalism only. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The Wikilinks on authors' names in the references and one dead link. Fix those and we will have a good article. on hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK those problems have now been fixed. I am happy to pass this as a good article. Congratulations upon a well written and researched article on a little known episode in Balkan history. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The Wikilinks on authors' names in the references and one dead link. Fix those and we will have a good article. on hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK those problems have now been fixed. I am happy to pass this as a good article. Congratulations upon a well written and researched article on a little known episode in Balkan history. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Wikilinks on authors' names in the references and one dead link. Fix those and we will have a good article. on hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK those problems have now been fixed. I am happy to pass this as a good article. Congratulations upon a well written and researched article on a little known episode in Balkan history. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)