Talk:Carpathian Ruthenia/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Prior issues have been corrected

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

@Barrettsprivateers: Lol is this a joke? The article is almost entirely unsourced. Don’t make a fake GA assessment again or I’l haul you before a noticeboard. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: Wow, what a way to encourage a new editor. Try being nice? Barrettsprivateers (talk)

@Barrettsprivateers: A new editor should not be doing GA assessments, you should only do those after you have a strong understanding of wikipedia’s standards, policies, and guidelines. I’m sorry to have been so brusque. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.