Talk:Croatian Parliament/GA1

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

Reviewer: Wustenfuchs (talk · contribs) 21:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well-written:
 * (a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; ✅
 * (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. ✅


 * Factually accurate and verifiable:
 * (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; ✅
 * (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; ✅
 * (c) it contains no original research. ✅


 * Broad in its coverage:
 * (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; ✅
 * (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). ✅


 * Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. ✅
 * Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.✅
 * Illustrated, if possible, by images:
 * (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; ✅
 * (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. ✅

Nice job on the article, however, what about the lead, it is stated that Sabor didn't met from 1918 to 1945, however, reading the history of the Sabor I found statement that it met in 1942, truth to be said, as Parliament of the Independent State of Croatia. But I haven't found the information that Sabor met even in 1945. When we solve this, article will pass.

Overall: ✅

-- Wusten  fuchs  22:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing this article. In respect of the lead issue concerned, I have expanded the final paragraph of the lead with a mention of the 1942 meeting of unelected Sabor as the matter is discussed at a greater length in the body text. Similarly, ZAVNOH assembly is considered a part of Sabor history and therefore it is also mentioned there, but in no more than a single sentence because the lead is still just a summary. I realize that the latter could use an additional reference in the body text - and that is added too now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, then, that's it. It's promoted. -- Wusten  fuchs  18:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)