Talk:Epirus/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 10:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Ya sou! I will take this review. I will review this article against the six good article criteria (WP:GA?). I will take 2-3 days to familiarise myself with the article and then update you on my assessment. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Assessment
[edit]| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
|
|
2b. 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). | |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | |
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Pending |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
|
|
3b. 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. | Uncertain - see below |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | |
Comments
[edit]Many thanks for your and other editors work to improve this very interesting article. It's a fascinating article and this region clearly has significance throughout Greece and Albania. Having read through the article twice, I do have some concerns with this article:
- It is lacking sources in a relatively large number of locations
- The primary source is Encyclopedia Britannica, which is a tertiary source (see WP:WPNOTRS). Ideally information should be based on secondary sources.
- This region clearly has significance to Greece, however I feel that an Albanian perspective (if any) hasn't been given enough coverage
- The article is quite scant about the current state of Epirus - it's missing things such as population and demographics, culture, trade and surviving landmarks
I do not think this article is ready for GA at present, although I am sure with some improvement it would be suitable. I look forward to a discussion with the nominator and am happy to discuss any of the issues above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- No response in about 2 weeks. Many thanks to the nominator for their reviews. This article isn't yet ready, and I think it's best that we mark this review as not passed and await a future renomination. I am certain with more attention this article will be suitable for good article status, but it isn't just yet. Happy editing! --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)