Talk:Eastern Bloc/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) 20:15, 12 September 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, on to main review. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * The article is reasonably well written
 * b (MoS):
 * I don't think the Lead adequately summarises such a complex article.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * One dead link found, ref #21 ; other links fixed using WP:CHECKLINKS. ...followed by a Soviet annexation of roughly the same eastern Finnish territories as the prior interim peace treaty as part of the Karelo-Finnish Soviet Socialist Republic. has a citation needed tag. I note that some of the citation styles are inconsistent, eg. ref 68 & 73;
 * updated. n
 * Citation need tag still outstanding. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * Sources appear reliable - I assume good faith for those that I cannot access.
 * c (OR):
 * 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:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 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):
 * It would be good to have a little more detail in the captions of leaders rather than just the name.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * A few relatively minor point, apart from the lead which needs more work. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Lead is still inadequate, citation needed tag not addressed, so not listing at this time. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * It would be good to have a little more detail in the captions of leaders rather than just the name.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * A few relatively minor point, apart from the lead which needs more work. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Lead is still inadequate, citation needed tag not addressed, so not listing at this time. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A few relatively minor point, apart from the lead which needs more work. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Lead is still inadequate, citation needed tag not addressed, so not listing at this time. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)