![]() | Zrinski Battalion has been listed as one of the
Warfare good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: February 25, 2014. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Zrinski Battalion be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Croatia may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri ( talk · contribs) 05:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC) I'll take this. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 05:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Good Article Checklist
Good Article review progress box
|
Comments: This article likely meets the broad and focused aspects of the GA criteria and it is well-cited and covered by various reliable sources. I'd prefer that some of the sources be directly attributed in-line with more frequency, but that is optional. Some of the text leads to more frustration about the service history and the command structure of the battalion - which is the only point I can really fault in the GA process. I do wish the the battle portion be expanded to its own paragraph or two, because the action of the battalion was quite small before it was amalgamated. Is this possible to do? I'll place it on hold for now. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 05:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
That being said, please check it over and let me know. There are also a lot of typos that need fixing... and its swapping between different versions of English. So please copy edit it. I see a lot of "defence" spellings when it is " Territorial Defense Forces", so I think the prevailing name causes this to be reflected as is. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 16:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
A notice for future reviewers: The above statement is not quite as it may seem. I have requested the reviewer to postpone further activities regarding this GAR until the beginning of the next week and received their acknowledgement and implicit approval here. I initiated the exchange at the reviewer's talk page rather than here because the reviewer had taken on as many as five GANs I nominated, therefore a centralized notice seemed more efficient. Although it is entirely within the GA reviewer's rights to fail the review at this point, I'm still taken aback with inconsistent answer at the reviewer's talk page and subsequent action here.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 21:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The details requested on commanders and details on unit role in individual battles is simply nowhere to be found in reliable sources. Therefore it is not actionable for me.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 12:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
The article is written in British English. Regarding the Territorial Defence vs Territorial Defense, the search results are nearly evenly split at 6 to 7 thousand apiece. The organisation has no native English name therefore I don't find the direction to use US spelling to be applicable.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 12:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
All three claims noted above as missing citations are already referenced in the article.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 12:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC) I have repeated the refs now in requested positions.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 14:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() | Zrinski Battalion has been listed as one of the
Warfare good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: February 25, 2014. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Zrinski Battalion be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Croatia may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri ( talk · contribs) 05:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC) I'll take this. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 05:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Good Article Checklist
Good Article review progress box
|
Comments: This article likely meets the broad and focused aspects of the GA criteria and it is well-cited and covered by various reliable sources. I'd prefer that some of the sources be directly attributed in-line with more frequency, but that is optional. Some of the text leads to more frustration about the service history and the command structure of the battalion - which is the only point I can really fault in the GA process. I do wish the the battle portion be expanded to its own paragraph or two, because the action of the battalion was quite small before it was amalgamated. Is this possible to do? I'll place it on hold for now. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 05:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
That being said, please check it over and let me know. There are also a lot of typos that need fixing... and its swapping between different versions of English. So please copy edit it. I see a lot of "defence" spellings when it is " Territorial Defense Forces", so I think the prevailing name causes this to be reflected as is. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 16:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
A notice for future reviewers: The above statement is not quite as it may seem. I have requested the reviewer to postpone further activities regarding this GAR until the beginning of the next week and received their acknowledgement and implicit approval here. I initiated the exchange at the reviewer's talk page rather than here because the reviewer had taken on as many as five GANs I nominated, therefore a centralized notice seemed more efficient. Although it is entirely within the GA reviewer's rights to fail the review at this point, I'm still taken aback with inconsistent answer at the reviewer's talk page and subsequent action here.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 21:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The details requested on commanders and details on unit role in individual battles is simply nowhere to be found in reliable sources. Therefore it is not actionable for me.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 12:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
The article is written in British English. Regarding the Territorial Defence vs Territorial Defense, the search results are nearly evenly split at 6 to 7 thousand apiece. The organisation has no native English name therefore I don't find the direction to use US spelling to be applicable.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 12:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
All three claims noted above as missing citations are already referenced in the article.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 12:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC) I have repeated the refs now in requested positions.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 14:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)