Talk:Kosta Pećanac/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 21:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Progression

 * Version of the article when originally reviewed:
 * Version of the article when review was closed:

Technical review

 * Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
 * Disambiguations: no dab links (no action required).
 * Linkrot: external links check out (no action required).
 * Alt text: Images lacks alt text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only - not a GA criteria). All done . Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues (no action required).

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Generally a single sentence doesn't constitute a paragraph. As such I have merged a couple of paragraphs. Pls review and revert if you don't think this was helpful.
 * "During World War I, following the disastrous end to the Serbian campaign...", when? A date would add context for the reader.
 * Kingdom of Yugoslavia is wikilinked multiple times - once in World War I section and again immediately after in the World War II section. Other than in the lead it should only be wikilinked once per WP:REPEATLINK.
 * "Pećanac's father and his brother Milosav participated in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878...", participated in seems a little passive. Maybe: "Pećanac's father and his brother Milosav fought in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878..."? (suggestion only)
 * "In a meeting on Christmas of 1904...", perhaps "Christmas Day 1904" would be more precise? (suggestion only)
 * "He took part in the defeat of the Albanians in Merdare, the battle of Kumanovo...", I think it should be "Battle of Kumanovo" as its a noun.
 * Likwise with "battle of Bregalnica".
 * "Shortly prior to the invasion of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia...", by whom? Might add context.
 * The "World War II" section contains a number of stubby single sentence paragraphs. You might consider merging them with other paragraph as it would improve the quality of the prose. Many read as proseline.
 * All done Thanks. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * All major points cited using WP:RS.
 * Consistent citation style used throughout.
 * No issues with OR.
 * A few of the references lack a place of publishing, including: Milazzo, Mitrović, Roberts and Singleton. Can this information be added?
 * All done Thanks. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Most major points seem to be covered without going into undue detail.
 * This seems chronologically out of order: "In 1915, Pećanac had received various medals for his "merit in fighting" including three gold medals for bravery, one for military virtue, and the Order of the Karađorđe's Star (4th Class). It remains unclear whether this was exclusively for his service in World War I or for his prior military feats." This paragraph comes straight after a paragraph which details events in 1917, almost seems like it should come at the begining of the section and be expanded to include his activities in 1915 which led to this award. The articles seems a little lacking if its not included. Is this information available?
 * The following sentence is included in the lead but doesn't seem to be specifically covered in the body of the article (although it is alluded to): "and was known for his strong hostility to the Yugoslav Communist Party, which made him popular with conservatives such as the Yugoslav Radical Union." This should be included with a citation IMO as it provides important context for later paragraphs.
 * "Pećanac's Chetniks regularly clashed with other German auxiliaries such as the Serbian State Guard, Serbian Volunteer Command and also with Mihailović's Chetniks." Why?
 * All done Thanks. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * No issues here AFAIK.


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * All recent edits look constructive.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
 * Images used appear to be in the public domain and seem appropriate for the article.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * This article looks quite good to me although they are a few areas where it could be improved. Should be able to meet the GA criteria fairly easily nonetheless. Of course I'm happy to discuss any of the points raised. Anotherclown (talk) 23:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again, Anotherclown, thanks. I'm pretty sure I've addressed all your points. Let me know if you see any other issues? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Those changes look good to me. Passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 09:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)