Talk:Lady of the Forest/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 12:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ruby, I'll be glad to take this one. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks as always for your contributions! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Overall this looks like your usual terrific work, and is more or less ready to pass. I've made a few tweaks as I went; feel free to revert any with which you disagree. I have a few suggestions below, but I don't think there's much work to be done here.

  • "having flashbacks to Sir Hugh's violent murder" -- can you clarify who Sir Hugh is? ("his friend Sir Hugh's" perhaps?)
  • "a rabid man" -- this threw me for a moment--does he literally have rabies? Or do you just mean in the sense of frenzied/angry?
  • The discussion in the "Analysis" section is slightly confusing. The footnotes show that Knight's comments are taken from a variety of sources, which is fine, but the in-text description (" In a chapter of Icons of the Middle Ages: Rulers, Writers, Rebels, and Saints"... " Knight continues that "...) implies a continuous line of reasoning from a single source. Can this be cleaned up a bit?
  • I cut the "prominent" from "prominent scholar" as a minor bit of peacocking per WP:PEA
  • The two uses of "noted" in the section should probably be reworded per WP:WTW -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • "entirely her own concoction." -- is this correct that Roberson refers to herself in the third person here? -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Checklist[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. Minor clarity points above
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Minor WP:WTW points above
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. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Google and Highbeam checks suggest that it covers available information
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.
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 images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Pass as GA

Thank you for the review! I believe I have addressed all of your concerns (I opted for "enraged" as a replacement for "rabid," and hopefully the analysis section looks better). Ruby 2010/2013 00:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that'll do it--thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again for reviewing this and others! Keep up the good work! Ruby 2010/2013 01:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)