Talk:3rd Congress of the Indonesian Democratic Party/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Minecrafter0271 (talk · contribs) 21:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Here is my article review:

  • "A more explicit urge to held a congress..." I believe the word "explicit" is out of context, so I changed the words "more explicit" to "stronger," which I find more in context, to make it "A stronger urge to held a congress..." Change was in Paragraph 2, Sentence 1 of the section "Background."
In the same sentence, I found that the word "held" was also used out of context, so I changed it to "hold."
I made the same change above in the Background Section on Paragraph 2, Sentence 3.
I fixed these errors, so the article can meet the first criteria.
  • I found that the first couple sentences from the Opening subsection in the Congress section were going off topic, so I deleted the unnecessary stuff to get the article back on track
  • The article wasn't too illustrated, but because of the subject making it hard to illustrate the article, I will let it *
  • I find that the article veers off-topic once, and I fixed that
  • I find that it has a complete list of reliable sources, and that the facts are cited
  • I find that the article was neutral, non-biased, and included reactions from others on both sides
  • I see no copyright claims or plagiarism
  • I find that the article is eligible for the title of "Good Article."

After reading the article, checking the criteria, I find that while the article isn't perfect or featured, I do think that it can be called a "Good Article." Congratulations! Minecrafter0271 (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Successful good article nomination[edit]

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of January 2, 2020, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Verifiable?: Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Stable? Pass
6. Images?: Pass


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.