Talk:Blakumen/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 3family6 (talk · contribs) 00:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The link to black men in the lead is anachronistic. This seems to have been a major source of contention on this article in the past as well. I would recommend delinking "black men", and instead link "black" to dark skin.

I am confused by the first section in the article. It opens with a statement that the only attested use of the ethonym Blakumen is on a runestone, but then later on it says that "Spinei counters this view on account of the fact that several mentions of the Blakumen (for instance in the Eymund's Saga) occur in contexts taking place decades before the earliest appearance of the Cumans in the Pontic steppe.[7]" - So the term only used on a runestone, or not?--¿3family6 _contribs 19:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I'm accepting sources AGF, as they are offline, and some are even in foreign languages. The use of citations is adequate, and the material well-referenced. My only issue is that several citations are placed in the middle of a sentence and interrupt the flow. They should be moved to either the end of the sentence, or to the comma ending the sentence phrase.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers all the major aspects, isn't bogged down by extraneous content.--¿3family6 _contribs 19:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Subject portrayed in a neutral manner.--¿3family6 _contribs 01:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Fairly stable. There was a bit of a slow-burning edit war, but it seems to have sorted itself out.--¿3family6 _contribs 01:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

5. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images are very suitable, and have no licensing issues.--¿3family6 _contribs 01:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

6. Overall: A wikilink in the lead is inaccurate, some citations interrupt flow, and I found some of the prose confusing.--¿3family6 _contribs 19:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Y All issues addressed. Passed.--¿3family6 _contribs 04:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

1. Pass/Fail:

3family6, thank you for your review. I think that I fixed the problems that you mentioned above. Borsoka (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)