Talk:Alodia/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 21:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review[edit]

  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Exceptionally densely referenced. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) 44% on Earwig, but on review not IMO a copy vio. Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) So far as I can ascertain, all images are in the public domain Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Pass Pass

Result[edit]

Result Notes
Pass Pass A high quality, well written, rigorously referenced article giving a thorough overview of a little known topic. A huge amount pf work has clearly gone into it and it shows A richly deserved Good Article Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

References

  • Poncet is missing a publisher and location. (W. Lewis and London)
  • Tsakos and Kleinitz is missing a date of publication.

Prose.

  • "According to John, the Alodian king was aware of the baptisms of Nobadia in 543 (Miaphysite branch) and Makuria around 568/569 (Melkite branch)." Mention of the two branches makes no sense other than to the most technical of experts. You need to explain the terms, and/or link them, or at a push delete them.
  • "such as those in Musawwarat es-Sufra, for example." You can use "such as" or "for example"; using both is redundant.
  • "Droughts, which occurred in Africa between 1150 and 1500,". This reads oddly, it suggests that droughts didn't occur outside this period.
  • The last paragraph of Causes of decline is a little long. Is it possible to split it?
  • "with 150 "captaincies" residing on both sides of the Nile". You need to explain what captaincies are. (People? Places? Tribal groups?)

Copy edit.

  • I have done some minor copy editing as I have gone along. If you don't like anything let me know and we can discuss it.
  • In your block quote the ellipses shouldn't be in brackets.

It is looking pretty good. More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild Concerning point four: the thing is that the whole paragraph is about the same topic, i.e. the arrival and settlement of the Arabs. It also doesn't seem to be that much longer than paragraph one of the "Aftermath" chapter or the "Geographical extent" paragraph/chapter. LeGabrie (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@LeGabrie: No worries. It is not a fail issue. If I were the author I would break it. But I can see why you prefer not to. Ping me when you have finished work on the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild Reworked the other four points. LeGabrie (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "together with some "famous necklace of pearls and rubbies"". If "some", then "necklace" should be plural; if singular, use 'a' instead of "some". (PS rubies, not rubbies.)
Dôné. LeGabrie (talk) 10:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is really good. I will do some more tomorrow.Gog the Mild (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have made some further copy edits. Could you please check them carefully and ping me if there are any you are not happy with. Once that is settled I think that we are done. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think "bishop" and "king" are not written with capital letters. Everything else is good. LeGabrie (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I was wrong. Apologies. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild I think the nomination is still officially halted, since the bot hasn't added a GA icon to the article. Also didn't receive a notification on my Talk page that the nomination succeeded. LeGabrie (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LeGabrie: Strange. I overwrote the 'on hold'. It is gone from the nominations list. Perhaps the bot is working slowly. Give it another 24 hours and if it doesn't resolve itself I will leave a message with the powers that be. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes[edit]

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alodia/GA1&oldid=1038143850"