Talk:Edo literature/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Reading Beans (talk · contribs) 06:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of November 4, 2023, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Verifiable?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Stable? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

I could be missing something, but, whatever it is can not be so awful. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it Good article reassessed. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Reading Beans (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• I’ve already read this. I’m also re-reading. Minor corrections will be spotted or corrected by me, feel free to revert if you’re not comfortable. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 06:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• In the Early period "Edegbe and others"—who are these people? I also think that the fourth paragraph should be placed in the second paragraph for chronological sake. 1910s comes before 1920s. Also, as noted in the subsequent section, you mentioned that Roman script wa adopted in the 1930s. Which script was used in the 1910s and 1920s?

This is the things I have seen so far. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 06:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Reading Beans I have fixed the above. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.