Talk:Term limits in Russia

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Term limits in Russia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 04:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 10:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for nominating this article. I'll have a look and review it. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Initial comments

• There is unlikely any copyright violation in the article. Earwig's Copyvio Detector has reported only 13.8% in similarity.
• There are no cleanup banners, such as those listed at WP:QF, in the article.
• The article is stable.
• No previous GA reviews.

General comments

• Prose, spelling, and grammar checking.
  • "As the Constitution of Russia was developed in 1993." – This looks like an unfinished sentence.
  • "additional non-consecutive beyond the two-term limit" → "additional non-consecutive terms beyond the two-term limit"
  • No major issues were found in the article. I've made some minor improvements. See Special:Diff/1244990278.
• Checking whether the article complies with MOS.
  • The article complies with the MOS:LEDE, MOS:LAYOUT, and MOS:WTW guidelines. There is no fiction and embedded lists within the article, so I am skipping MOS:WAF and MOS:EMBED. Overall, the lede's length is okay, and it summarises the article, the article has appropriate section, and there are no biased words in the article.
• Checking refs, verifiability, and whether there is original research.
  • References section with a {{reflist}} template is present in the article.
  • No referencing issues.
  • All references are reliable.
  • Spotchecked Ref 1, 4, 6, 10, 17, 27, 31, 36–all verify the cited content. AGF on other citations.
  • Copyvio already checked.
• Checking whether the article is broad in its coverage.
  • The article addresses the main aspects, and it stays focused on the topic.
• Checking whether the article is presented from an NPOV standpoint.
  • The article meets the criteria and is written in encyclopedic language.
• Checking whether the article is stable.
  • As noted in the initial comments, the article has been stable.
• Checking images.
  • Optional: Add alt text to images.
  • Images are properly licensed.

Final comments

@Thebiguglyalien: I won't put the article on hold because of one unfinished sentence, but please fix it asap. Promoting. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.