Talk:Serbia–United States relations/GA1

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

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 16:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'm Calvin999 and I am reviewing this nomination.


 * Multiple links are either dead or have connection problems Thanks for this information. I will review all the dead or forbidden links as soon as I have time and replace them whenever possible
 * governments of Serbia and the United States. → You've linked Serbia but not United States? Corrected
 * by establish diplomatic relations → typo Corrected
 * You can tack the one sentence long fourth paragraph onto the end of the third one. One line paragraphs look silly. Corrected
 * United States and Yugoslavia → I'm pretty sure Yugoslavia didn't exist in the 2000s and hasn't since 1992? Discussed
 * Diplomatic relation→ relations Corrected
 * between then- → between the then Corrected
 * In 1879 the → Comma after 1879 Corrected
 * On 3 February 1882 → Comma after 1882 Corrected
 * Such cooperation were highlighted → was, not were Corrected
 * There's overlinking of Chetniks's here. Corrected
 * The United States Air Force (USAF) and the British Royal Air Force → Put (RAF) after Royal Air Force to be consistent Made consistent, just used acronyms 'USAF' and 'RAF'
 * Overlinking of Josip Broz Tito Corrected
 * March 23, 1999. → You've switched date formats from British to American The dates throughout the article are now in American format
 * devoted over $30 million → You can't devote money to someone (not in this sense, anyway). Donate would be better here. Corrected
 * On June 25 → Comma after the date, and you've switched date formats Corrected
 * as he was assassinated on March 12, 2003. → Date formatting ???
 * On February 15, 2008, → Date formatting ???
 * On April 19, 2012, shortly → Date formatting ???
 * SNS-era (2012-), the last two one line paragraphs can be tacked on to the end of the proper paragraph. Corrected
 * You flick between US, U.S., and United States throughout the article. Pick one and be consistent with it (as with the date formatting)
 * Trade and investment, again that stray sentence, just put it on the end of the proper paragraph. Corrected
 * Don't WP:SHOUT in the references (not block capitals) Corrected
 * Lots of references are missing access dates. What about references with dates (i.e. date the author wrote the source) and without access dates? Are these mutually exclusive requirements for a good article?
 * If an article doesn't have a date of publication, then you obviously can't include one. But all sources should have the date you accessed it. — Calvin999  22:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You're using another type of different date formatting in the references, such as 2008-02-08 in addition to 13 September 2010. Be consistent with the format. Corrected when possible (some sources did not display the date to the exact day, and whenever I would change the access dates to that format I would get some sort of syntax errors (in red) in the references section

On hold for 7 days. — Calvin999 18:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Outcome

I've gone through the references and improved a fair few of them. You can do the remaining few. As this was the only thing that needed doing, I'm closing the review as a pass. — Calvin999 10:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just started working on this. I have put a Corrected label by the points which you suggested. I am not done yet though. Thanks for the suggestions though! Zastavafan76 (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. Let me know when you're done. — Calvin999  22:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the patience! Zastavafan76 (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)