Talk:Liberum veto/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 18:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- 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| 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| reply here 03:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Looks good to me: passed. --Coemgenus (talk) 09:58, 1 October 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| reply here 03:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)