Talk:The Bridge on the Drina/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sagecandor (talk · contribs) 03:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of December 19, 2016, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Okay this one is very very good. This one is featured article ready, right now. And I can see how that makes sense as the nominator contributed to three featured articles already. . Great structure and layout, excellent writing style, good size for the introduction, and the intro is worded well and places the article within a good contextual background for the reader. Very very very well done here.
 * 2. Verifiable?: Summary has no citations but doesn't need any in this section. All other sections are meticulously cited with a great citation scheme. Excellent that even the Endnotes themselves have citations to back them up. High quality work here with the citations.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Yes the article is quite thorough. Covers good intro, summary, style, themes and motifs, reception and legacy, and great organizational layout overall and for the references. I'm not seeing any issues about over-weighing any individual sectoin in terms of size or weight to a particular position. So in that respect the thoroughness is also balanced out by good weighting for each section, and one does not take away from the other here.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: The intro is worded matter of factly. The summary section is a good overall presentation that is a tag on the longer side but still doesn't go into too much depth, and it's nice to get an overall picture of the subject matter from a beginning, middle, to end. Fascinating how the fiction style of the book is educational from a historical perspective, and the ending appears to flow right into the beginning of World War I. One caution I might say is just not necessarily related here in this section to NPOV, but more so to just writing style, and that would be to reduce some of the more obvious wiki-linking like words like simply "nationalism", and things like that. Otherwise, great job.
 * 5. Stable? No ongoing edit wars or edit conflicts. No activity on the article for over a month. Talk page has some minor discussion going back to August 2016 but no real heavy arguments there, just healthy friendly suggestions. Nice to see that talk page collaboration going on without going into combative nature.
 * 6. Images?: Let's see there's six pictures used on the page. The infobox one has a great fair use rationale using book cover fur. The others are all hosted on Wikimedia Commons and look okay. The very last image appears to violate commons:Commons:Freedom_of_panorama, but I nominated it for deletion so that wil sort itself out over there, no need to also do something about it here, just let that community play its course and delete if they decide to do that based on their assessment of their policies.

Overall, very very very well done. Good job on the research, great job on the writing. I'd say take care of that one image question, then maybe think about a peer review and some copy editing from people that haven't seen the page before, and then you could be ready for a featured article discussion ! If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it Good article reassessed. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Sagecandor (talk) 03:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)