Talk:Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law/GA1

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

Reviewer: Danielyng (talk · contribs) 20:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I am notifying you of my intentions to start reviewing this Article for Good Article status. Expect a full review to be out in a week at most, probably either tomorrow or Friday. Danielyng (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Hi, thanks for your review. But redlinks are not part of the GA criteria. The ones in this article meet the requirement in WP:REDYES. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Passed, then. Thanks! Danielyng (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

INITIAL THOUGHTS
My initial thoughts are that this is a well-written article, including ample citations w/o original research, but there are a lot of Red Links, which I would recommend clearing up.

INITIAL SUGGESTIONS:

 * Clear up the Red Links

CRITERIA
Well written:
 * the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
 * it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[

Verifiable with no original research:
 * it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
 * all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those 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;
 * it contains no original research; and
 * it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

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

Neutral:
 * it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial 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 media such as images, video, or audio:
 * media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
 * media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

CRITERIA REVIEW
Well Written: The prose of the Article is clear, and well written. It is understandable for a broad audience.

VERIFIABLE WITH NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH
The information is sourced from reputable institutions. There is no original research.

BROAD IN ITS COVERAGE
The article addresses the main aspects of the topic and stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

STABLE
No edit warring going on.

ILLUSTRATED
Illustrated with ample amount of media.

NEUTRAL
The article is Neutral.

FINAL RESULT
Danielyng (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)