An excellent article, very in-depth and reliably sourced. Can see no issues with it whatsoever, looks good to go! –
GnocchiFan (
talk) 10:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)reply
As mentioned
here, another user has noted issues with duplicate refs and possible references needed in footnotes, but says it doesn't need to be re-assessed. Apologies if this review was not sufficiently thorough; this is my first time reviewing articles for GA on Wikipedia.
GnocchiFan (
talk) 18:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)reply
No problem. Can you point out the dupe refs so I can fix them? My eyes aren't as good as yours.
Viriditas (
talk) 20:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Neither can I, if truth be told. I've asked FunkMunk on his talk page. Thanks for your patience
GnocchiFan (
talk) 20:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)reply
No hurry on this. I will also take a look later after I get back from work.
Viriditas (
talk) 20:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)reply
FunkMunk didn't mention "duplicate refs" but
WP:duplinks, better known as MOS:REPEATLINK. The ones I noticed are several paragraphs apart, so that's permissible under that guideline's "and at the first occurrence in a section". As for unreferenced footnotes: I see two, La Esméralda and the parents of George Bibescu; these seem trivial and non-controversial and unlikely to be challenged. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk) 04:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)reply
No worries, no worries. Just fixed both.
[1] The info about Bibescu I had in there was wrong. Most embarrassing, I named his stepmother as his birth mother. Now corrected. Thank you everyone. Please help identify additional issues if possible.
Viriditas (
talk) 22:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)reply