Talk:Phryne/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 17:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll review this one. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This is a well-written and thoroughly researched article that does a good job of handling a topic which must largely be assembled from disparate evidence. In particular, it does an excellent job of showing the reader the great deal of less-than-certain primary source information, and the conflicting versions of Phryne's story, while hedging its own editorial judgements appropriately.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Unquestionably - impeccably copyedited, clearly written and does a good job of making complex ideas accessible.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   I checked a sample of the references, which checked out straightforwardly.

   B. 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:

   I have posted a very nit-picky CN tag - a passage of Hermippus is alluded to, but not directly referenced.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Referencing to secondary sources is excellent - all factual statements in the editorial voice are sourced to academic secondary literature, and primary sources are used appropriately.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   I ran a sample of excerpts through Google and Google Books, and found no significant areas of similarity outside Wikipedia mirrors.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Excellent on both the ancient history and the post-Classical reception.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Concise but judiciously composed.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   See particularly the sections on the charge against Phryne and the conflicting accounts of the trial.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Substantially stable, with incremental improvements, since at least Feb 2022.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All copyright checks out.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   The side-by-side of Kauffmann and Boulanger's portraits, with the caption, is particularly impressive. Other illustrations are well captioned and complement the text significantly.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Sails through the criteria — should certainly hold GA status.

@UndercoverClassicist: thanks for your comments. I dug up the Hermippus ref you asked for Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Great stuff. Congratulations on the GA! UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2022 (UTC)