Talk:Petar Kočić/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bryanrutherford0 (talk · contribs) 15:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'll review this one. I'll have a first review up in the next few days. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be careful on how much editing you do before reviewing, so you don't fall into "has contributed significantly to the article" and can't review it. Kingsif (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2019 (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, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The prose standard is good. The MoS is followed for all the required sections excepting the lead; I've trimmed a lot of excessive detail out of the lead, but now it needs a better summary of Kočić's work and importance as a writer (it currently presents him almost exclusively as an activist and politician).
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * I'll have to AGF on the offline books and papers, as well as the non-English sources, but there's enough accessible online to confirm the overall outline of the article, as well as many of the details. No signs of plagiarism that I can see, though I can't check for close paraphrasing from the offline sources. One problem is a citation to a "Carmichael 2016" that is not included in the list of references. Also, there are two references currently listed as Donia 2006; one needs to be 2006a and the other 2006b.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article seems to cover the biography's major points. One significant problem is that, while the article describes Kočić as a playwright and claims that he was "one of the most important South Slavic playwrights of the 20th century," it doesn't seem to mention his having written any plays(?). This needs to be clarified.
 * 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):
 * The images all appear to have appropriate licenses.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * There are a few issues of coverage, clarity and citations that need to resolved. If those are addressed, it will be able to meet the standard. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No response from the nominator for a week; I'm putting this on hold for seven days and will need to see movement before then to avoid failing it. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * For want of progress, I'm failing this review; the subject is notable, and the article has a lot of good content, but it fails to reach the GA criterion of "broad coverage of major aspects" of the topic, since it lacks a discussion of Kočić's (apparently significant) work as a playwright. Whatever coverage of that aspect of his notability is eventually added needs to also be summarized in the lead section. There's also a minor sourcing issue, noted above. If these issues are addressed, the article should be otherwise ready to be nominated again and pass. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No response from the nominator for a week; I'm putting this on hold for seven days and will need to see movement before then to avoid failing it. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * For want of progress, I'm failing this review; the subject is notable, and the article has a lot of good content, but it fails to reach the GA criterion of "broad coverage of major aspects" of the topic, since it lacks a discussion of Kočić's (apparently significant) work as a playwright. Whatever coverage of that aspect of his notability is eventually added needs to also be summarized in the lead section. There's also a minor sourcing issue, noted above. If these issues are addressed, the article should be otherwise ready to be nominated again and pass. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)