Talk:Transcarpathia/GA1

{{al|{{#titleparts:Carpathian Ruthenia/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Carpathian Ruthenia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

: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.
2. :a (prose, spelling, and grammar): {{GAList/check|Y}} b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): {{GAList/check|Y}}
3. ::
4. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
5. :a (reference section): {{GAList/check|Y}} b (citations to reliable sources): {{GAList/check|Y}} c (OR): {{GAList/check|Y}} d (copyvio and plagiarism): {{GAList/check|Y}}
6. ::
7. It is broad in its coverage.
8. :a (major aspects): {{GAList/check|Y}} b (focused): {{GAList/check|Y}}
9. ::
10. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
11. :Fair representation without bias: {{GAList/check|Y}}
12. ::
13. It is stable.
14. :No edit wars, etc.: {{GAList/check|Y}}
15. ::
16. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
17. :a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): {{GAList/check|Y}} b (appropriate use with suitable captions): {{GAList/check|Y}}
18. ::
19. Overall:
20. :Pass/Fail: {{GAList/check|Y}}
21. ::

{{Ping|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)

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

::{{Ping|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)

{{archive bottom}}