Talk:Roman Empire/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Thehistorian10 (talk · contribs) 19:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

This review is a comprehensive examination of the application made for this Article to become a Good Article. To attain such status, it is necessary that the article pass ALL criteria relevant. In this Review, I will assess the article individually on each separate criterion, by setting out the rules applicable thereto, my findings on the criterion and my conclusion. I will then present my final judgement and listing recommendation.

1. Well-written

The Rules

The Rules applicable to this Criterion state: " (a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation."

Findings

Generally, I believe that an article of this size and importance must have immaculate spelling and grammar. Whilst I do not have the time nor effort to examine each and every sentence of the article, I can make a general finding that the spelling and grammar in the article are both of a high standard. The article is clear, but is not expected to be "concise" in the proper sense of the word as this is a wide-ranging topic.

Because this is an article detailing a significant historical period, it is unlikely that detailed examination of its adherence to copyright law would be necessary. There are no obvious copyright viiolations as described by WP:COPYVIO.

Regarding the lead section, I find it to be somewhat lacking in the sense that it apportions undue weight to the history of the period under discussion. Whilst this is plainly in contravention of the guidelines set out in WP:LEAD, I believe that such weight is necessary to summarize the period of discussion.

Regarding the layout of the article, I note that there are clear subject headings and subheadings that indicate the specific subtopic under discussion. The subheadings mean that the text is evenly divided up, and that this removes the possibility of the reader being confronted with a "wall" of text. The method of subdivision of topics is highly commendable, as it allows readeres with specific interests or specialisms to find those specialisms or areas of interest within teha rticle.

There is no obvious violation of the WP:VAGUE rule, as most topics of discussion present accurate or precise facts with precise statements to match. However, there is a use of the words "in theory", which falls under the list of words to watch. In the context of the sentence (located in the first section of the article - "government", specifically referring to the emperor's powers), the "in theory" may be unnecessary. However, as the use of them is questionable, with more than one possible explanation for their use, I will not fail the article on this reason alone.

There is no writing about fiction, so the guidelines about fiction do not apply and will not be examined as a result.

Regarding embedded lists, the use of an embedded list to show economical statistics is appropriate.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, I would conditionally pass the article. This means that I would pass this article on this criterion on the condition that the use of "in theory" as mentioned above is either explained or the word is removed.

2. factually accurate and verifiable

The applicable rules

The applicable rules state that:

"

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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;[6] and (c) it contains no original research."

Findings

Firstly, this article provides good source attribution. Two hundred and twelve sources for such a large article is - however - a disappointment, considering the fact that this topic is vast and has many details to be covered. However, this minor fault could be overlooked if the sources used refer to more than one material fact, in which case they would have to be cited in all places where the information contained therein is relied on.

There are many inline citations - although, as was stated earlier, the reliance on two hundred and twelve sources to provide information for such a large article is worrying. Further, at the bottom of the article, there is a list of published works, however it is unclear as to precisely where in the article these works are relevant. If they are merely recommended reading, they should be in a section that is entitled "recommended reading".

Owing to the wide use of source referencing, there are no possible instances of original research - in general.

Conclusion

For the foregoing, I would recommend that the article be passed on this criterion, notwithstanding concerns expressed regarding the disparity of sources. I suggest that this situation be monitored, and that the article be reassessed in the future with particular emphasis on reexamining the amount of references used with a view to possibly reconsidering its classification as a good article if the number of sources does not increase or if the number of sources used reduces.

3. Broad in its coverage

The Rules

The Rules state that:

"

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[7] and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)."

Findings

Firstly, it must be noted that the article covers a very wide and detailed subject. Therefore, subcondition (b) mentioned above, in my view, is irrelevant to this Decision, and will therefore not be considered.

The article appears to address the main aspects of the topic. It provides links to other articles of interest, or articles that may be more relevant or that cover the topic in more detail than can be covered in this general article. Nowhere in the article does it seek to replicate any other article that it links to.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, I would pass the article on this criterion.

4. Neutrality

The Rules

The Rules relevant to this criterion state that:

"it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each."

Findings

It is my opinion that this article does represent all viewpoints fairly. Where possibly contentious statements are made (such as in the second paragraph when discussing "peace and prosperity), inline citations are provided. There is no evidence of the article favouring one view over another.

Conclusion

For the foregoing, I would pass this article on this criterion.

5. Stability

The Rules

The relevant Rules state that:

"it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute."

Findings

Upon consulting the edit history, I note that there are no obvious signs of edit wars or other instability issues. This is also evident from the talkpage. There is history of a mini-edit war in September 2011 over "size", but other than this instance, there have been no edit wars in the past six months.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, I would pass this article on this criterion.

6. Illustration by images

The Rules

The Rules state that:

"

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions"

Findings

Upon consulting the article, I see that there are many images. Each image is relevant to the topic area, being well-placed. Captions are provided, explaining what the image is. There are also licensing statements provided on each image page.

Through examining the placement of images in the article, I conclude that theya re relevant to each subtopic being discussed.

Conclusions

For the foregoing, I would pass this article on this criterion.

Overall Conclusions

Notwithstanding any concerns I have stated, it is my belief that this article has exceeded expectations in all the criteria against which it was tested. To improve the article, I would recommend that concerns expressed in this review be considered and/or implementetd - especially regarding the number of references provided.

I would therefore recommend that this article be listed as a good article in the "history" category. I wish to congratulate the nominator and the various editors who have worked on this article to ensure that it has become a good article.