GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Geethree ( talk · contribs) 17:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of November 13, 2023, compares against the six good article criteria:
Solid and coherent copy, understandable to someone unfamiliar with Mongolian history. There are extremely minor tweaks I would make (there is an over-use of commas, for example), but I will do that myself post-review.
Well sourced. It is perhaps over-reliant on another third-party source (Atwood) and could be improved with more secondary sourcing. However, I think the sourcing is thorough and appropriate to pass the good article review.
No comments. Concise and focused while providing helpful, wikilinked historical context.
Great job. I enjoyed reading the article! 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.— Geethree ( talk) 18:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Geethree ( talk · contribs) 17:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of November 13, 2023, compares against the six good article criteria:
Solid and coherent copy, understandable to someone unfamiliar with Mongolian history. There are extremely minor tweaks I would make (there is an over-use of commas, for example), but I will do that myself post-review.
Well sourced. It is perhaps over-reliant on another third-party source (Atwood) and could be improved with more secondary sourcing. However, I think the sourcing is thorough and appropriate to pass the good article review.
No comments. Concise and focused while providing helpful, wikilinked historical context.
Great job. I enjoyed reading the article! 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.— Geethree ( talk) 18:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)