Talk:Dušan the Mighty (paramilitary)
 | Dušan the Mighty (paramilitary) 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Possible boost on the content assessment scale
The article has been significantly updated, sources to the Battle of Borovo Selo and Lovas killings have been added, as well as better context. There are sources (unlike last time where there were no sources listed.) Orhov (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
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:Dušan the Mighty (paramilitary)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 18:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: PizzaKing13 (talk · contribs) 09:26, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
I'll review this article. Number of Serbian/Yugoslav articles I've reviewed will go up to 5, and 3 of them were some of your political party GANs lol. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 09:26, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Comments
- Is Dušan the Mighty named after anyone? I assume Stefan Dušan?
- Yes, somehow missed in the article. I've added it now.
- Did Dušan the Mighty just disappear after the November 1991 peace plan? Because the State Security Directorate stopped supporting the SNO?
- Seems like so because there is no coverage beyond that date. Thomas suggests that SNO lost a lot of power after that, therefore I'd assume that the paramilitary also ceased to exist during that period. From RS, however, we know that they were only active in 1991, that's it.
Overall
- Is stable
- No copyright, earwig says 9.1%
- Is neutral
- Sources are reliable
- Lone image is fine
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a. (reference section):
- b. (citations to reliable sources):
- c. (OR):
- d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a. (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a. (major aspects):
- b. (focused):
- a. (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/fail:
- Pass/fail:
(Criteria marked 
are unassessed)
- @Vacant0: Great article! I've left some comments for the review. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 09:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. I've replied to two of your comments. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Vacant0: Everything seems to be addressed. Congrats on the GA! PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 16:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. I've replied to two of your comments. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 7 July 2025 (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.