Talk:Liberum veto/GA1

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

Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 18:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Comments
 * In "Origins": I don't think "overrulement" is a word. Instead, I'd say "the veto was still occasionally overruled", or something like that.
 * In "Zenith", that last paragraph is too short. You should either expand it or combine it with the other paragraph.
 * In "Final years", "the foreigner powers" should just be "foreign powers".
 * The "In popular culture" section is way too short to be a section. Could it be combined with "Modern parallels" somehow?
 * The "Modern parallels" section should be in paragraph form, not disjointed sentences.
 * References and See also look fine.
 * The image you have is good. Another would be nice, if you can find something appropriate, but it's certainly not necessary.
 * That's it for my first pass. I'll have another look after you get through these. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * @User:Coemgenus: Tried to address most of the issues raised, through there's little I can add. I think that the slightly expanded short para at zenith should be fine now. Here are my edits. (I also removed one unreferenced para I missed previously). What do you think? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, that looks good. I'm going to give it one last copyedit before I pass it.  --Coemgenus (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * One last nit-pick: Dalibor Roháč is mentioned out of the blue. It might help the reader to say "Historian Dalibor Roháč..." or something [if he is an historian, that is].
 * Also: is that Veto card game available in English? It looks like fun!  --Coemgenus (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @User:Coemgenus: Seems he is more of a political scientist, added the info. Linked him and Veto, which has an article on pl wiki; sadly the game is only available in Polish and its doubtful it would get translated. It was popular enough in Poland to get a few expansions and such, but I am not sure who outside Poland (and Lithuania/Ukraine) would care for its historical theme - at least enough to warrant the investment :/ --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me: passed. --Coemgenus (talk) 09:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)