Talk:Armenia–Croatia relations/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Winner 42 (talk · contribs) 04:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Overall Comments

I understand that the nominator is somewhat inactive, but I'm going to give this review a shot. Winner 42 Talk to me! 04:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Overall this article will need significant expansion and copyediting to reach GA status. I suggest looking at Croatia–Hungary relations for an example of the coverage expected of a relationship of this type. I will place this article on hold to allow for improvements, please feel free to improve this as the nominator appears to be somewhat inactive. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• The introduction of more images would also be helpful. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Sectional Analysis

• Lead
  • The last sentence here needs additional articles and an "and" at the end of the list of organizations.
  • I'm concerned that this lead does not appropriately summarize the articles contents. For example, the lead does not discuss any of the treaties or trade policies between the countries.
• History
  • Republic of Ragusa -> The Republic of Ragusa
  • The first paragraph flows very poorly and is not well written
  • gained a recognition -> recognized
• Representation
  • Should this be a sub section of history?
  • The circumstances surrounding the recognition of Croatia by Armenia could use expansion and clarification
• Treaties
  • This section needs expansion in prose per WP:MOSLIST.
  • Did Agreement between the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Armenia for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income never enter into force?
• Trade and economic cooperation
  • This section also needs expansion with prose. For example, what are the conditions of trade between the two countries, what goods are being traded etc...
• High Level visits
  • Are these the only four high level visits between the two countries?

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Closing comment

The nominator has not edited on Wikipedia since late June, the article itself hasn't been edited since early May, and the reviewer has just retired from Wikipedia. Given the issues raised in the review, I am closing this nomination; the article is not being listed. Should the nominator return, I suggest addressing all the issues raised in the review and consider completing a peer review before renominating. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)