Talk:Battle of Ohrid/GA1

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (

   lists

   ):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to

   reliable sources): c (OR

   ):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the
   neutral point of view
   policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have

   suitable captions

   ):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• The background section needs just a smidgen more context... there are some names introduced with Wikilinks (which is good), but otherwise no context as to who they are, such as Skanderberg and Lekë Dukagjini. Although the lead makes mention of how the article is discussing figures from Albania, the background section does not, and since the lead must not introduce information that is not present in the body of the article, the "background" section should be written under the assumption that the reader has not read the lead, even if you have to do a little bit of
  stating the obvious. Overall, I feel that the background section, while well-written, is like the second paragraph in a book that is missing the first one. Also, a little bit of context on the "Bosnia" that you're referring to (ie. "Mathias Corvinus of Hungary recaptured many of the Bosnian strongpoints, which had been taken by the Ottoman Empire in blah blah blah") would be helpful here, as most uninformed readers are going to be much more familiar with Bosnia and Herzegovina
  than the kingdom or the eyalet. I'm kind of having a hard time explaining the issue, but the overall point is that what you are trying to get across in the "background" section isn't immediately clear.
• Also per above, the actual date (and year) of the battle is only mentioned in the lead, not anywhere in the body of the article. This information in the body would help for contextualization as well.
• Under "Aftermath", "the Venetian Senate (Signoria) hailed the campaign as a victory despite the setback". It's probably just me, but I don't understand what the "setback" was here.
• The "Aftermath" section seems a little incomplete to me... maybe a sentence about how the Battle of Vaikal turned out, or something broader, would help tie the article together?
• In the lead, the sentence "he battle near Ohrid occurred as a result of an Albanian incursion into Ottoman territory where the Turks stationed in the area were assaulted by Skanderbeg's men and 1,000 Venetian soldiers under Cimarosto" is way too long and confusing. It needs to be split up into at least two.

To allow for these changes to be made I am placing the article on hold for a period of up to a week. I'm always open to discussion on any of the items, so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 00:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for deciding to take up one of my nominations again. I agree with your suggestions and tried to implement them. If there are any other issues you'd like to see fixed, feel free to tell me. Regards, Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Much much improved and bonus points for finding a good free-use picture for the article. I'm 1,000x more tired right now than I was when I first reviewed this article, but the formerly-problematic sections make perfect sense to me now. Therefore, I will now be passing this article into Good Article status. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Canadian Paul 05:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. :) --Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]