Talk:Croatia–Hungary relations/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 00:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Minor details
I've done a thorough reading of the article and have gone through most of the sources, and the article looks to be sound. I appreciate the breadth of topics that are included in this article that go beyond just the basic politics and history. There are just a few minor details that need to be sorted out before I can pass this article:
 * I believe there should be a name for the source that is given in Ref #8. If anything, the name of the website should be given.
 * Right. There was one in, but that particular citation parameter contained a typo causing the name not to appear - that's fixed now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't understand Ref #37 because there is not enough information given. I don't know if it is even necessary since Ref #36 seems to cover it.
 * A missing cite parameter is now added, and the cite updated.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The weblink for Ref #45 appears to be citing a book from 1911. If this is true, then I believ the book source should be cited along with the website that is hosting the information.
 * I redid the citation - citing the book. Since the Google books does not offer a preview of the text, I retained a link to the previously used source as a lay summary link.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll put the article on hold until these are taken care of. Thanks! -- Tea with toast  (話)  02:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing the article. I hope all your concerns are addressed appropriately.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Final review
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:
 * Thanks for taking care of those citations!
 * 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:
 * This is a very well researched article; I can't think of anything else you might add. It has been a pleasure to review this article. Thanks for your effort. -- Tea with toast  (話)  01:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * This is a very well researched article; I can't think of anything else you might add. It has been a pleasure to review this article. Thanks for your effort. -- Tea with toast  (話)  01:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This is a very well researched article; I can't think of anything else you might add. It has been a pleasure to review this article. Thanks for your effort. -- Tea with toast  (話)  01:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)