Talk:Lectionary 184/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 00:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll get to this review in the next couple of days. Ealdgyth (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
• I was able to check several of the sentences against this source thanks to the Wikipedia Library and they all supported their statements.
• Further reading: with the Scriviner source being used as a source, it should not also be in Further reading
• Description:
  • Link "codex"
  • do we have links for "itacisms"?
  • do we have link(s) for "breathings and accents"?
• I will admit I don't have the knowledge to evaluate the section on "noteable readings" but I'll AGF that it's correct.. heh.
• I did a few small corrections, I do not think they radically changed meaning but please make sure they didn't.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello Ealdgyth - think I've amended the article to comply with your suggestions above. Please have a look and let me know if anything else needs adding/clarifying/rewording. :) Thanks very much! Stephen Walch (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Those changes look good to me.. passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)