Talk:Bolokhovians/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 20:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka, I will conduct a thorough and comprehensive review of this article for Good Article status within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Borsoka, I have completed both a thorough review and re-review of this article, and I find that your article meets the bulk of criteria for induction to Good Article status. Before its final passage however, I do have some comments and questions that must first be addressed. Thank you for all your hard work on this article. -- Caponer (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caponer, thank you for your thorogh review of the article. Please find my comments below. Borsoka (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
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 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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Lede

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the topic of the Bolokhoveni ethnic group, establishes the necessary context for the group, and explains why the group is notable and historically relevant.
In the first sentence of the lede, I suggest a rewording to the effect of: "were a 13th-century that resided primarily in..."
- Thank you. The sentence was modified. Borsoka (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sack of Kiev by the Mongols should be wiki-linked in the lede, as it is in the History section.
- Thank you. WL was added. Borsoka (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The lede is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.

Etymology

To provide the relevance of the Chronicle's naming of the medieval Bolokhovo settlement, it may be necessary to explain that the chronicle is considered an important source of historical data for southern Rus'.
- Thank you. Info added. Pleas let me know if further info is necessary. Borsoka (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "land of Bolokhoveni" map graphic is licensed Creative Commons and is therefore free for use in this article.
This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.

Geography

The Bolokhoveni's land map is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and is therefore free for use in this article. I suggest that this image be relocated to this section under the section heading in order to space the images throughout the article.
- Sorry, I do not understand your above suggestion. Would you clarify it for me? Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Borsoka, I just thought it would be more aesthetically pleasing to move the one of the maps down the Geography section from Etymology. Let me know if this works for you. -- Caponer (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.

History

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, Poland does not need to be wiki-linked in the second paragraph.
- Thank you. WL was deleted. Borsoka (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the third paragraph, I recommend using "conflicts" rather than "fights" but this is merely a suggestion.
- Thank you. The text was modified. Borsoka (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Inline citation, inline citations should be consolidated in numerical order at the end of sentences.
- Thank you. Citations were consolidated in numerical order. Borsoka (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do any other sources or references indicated that the Bolokhoveni disappeared after they were defeated by Romanovich's troops in 1257?
- Thank you. I rewrote the last sentence which may clarify the issue. Please let me know if further info is necessary. Borsoka (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Borsoka, as always, you have written a phenomenal article. You have addressed each of my comments, questions, and concerns in a timely manner, and upon re-review I find that this article meets all criteria necessary to fulfill Good Article status. Thank you and congratulations! -- Caponer (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]