Talk:Women in classical Athens/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 21:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I will take this review. I am sorry for how long you've had to wait. I've reviewed 60+ other articles, including some long and complex ones, and will review this article against the 6 good article criteria. I'll read over this article and have a think, then start the review in 2-3 days. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Many thanks! I'm currently reviewing an article which has been languishing at GAN for two months now, so a fortnight isn't really that long to wait in comparison! I look forward to hearing your comments. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Status[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. | Very |
|
|
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. | |
| 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). | Well focused |
|
|
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 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. | |
Conclusion[edit]
Done images checked - no problems- Done text checked for plagiarism - none found
- Done some sources checked - no issues
Comments:
- I don't think that "Note 2" is necessary, I think it could be deleted without any damage to the integrity of the article
- In "Legal rights" and other sections, when a person's opinion or finding is written ("John Smith argues...") it's very useful for the uninformed reader if their profession is put at the start ("Historian John Smith argues...").
- You might not be aware, but there is a fairly easy to use citation style for when you are using only a couple of sources. See Anatomical terms of motion#References to see this style. I found it much easier to use when I only had to write my article, and maybe it will be useful in your future editing.
All in all, a thoroughly interesting and well-written article that meets the good article criteria! The comments above are small and don't impact on the high quality of this article, which I am passing. Well done! Tom (LT) (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Addit: this article is very well researched and I think it would have a good chance of also passing a featured article nomination. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)