Talk:Nabataean Aramaic/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 19:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
I'll have a look at this one. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Seven days have now passed since I put the article on hold. While my concerns under referencing remain, I think that the article is nevertheless above the standard required to clear the GAR bar (mindful of WP:GANOT). I am therefore passing it.
For reasons I don't understand, this doesn't seem to be showing my comments: see Talk:Nabataean Aramaic/GA1 UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
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. | A few minor copyedits made.
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | No issue here |
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. |
While this is technically outside the criteria for GAN, I would strongly recommend a move to {{sfn}} or similar templates, with a bibliography: with frequent references to the same source, this would help greatly with coherency. I would also recommend preventing WP:LINKROT by using archive-urls and, more generally, formatting citations (esp. 1, which is a WP:BAREURL) Again, this is outside the GAN criteria, and so will not delay the passing of the article. |
![]() |
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). | No issue here. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | No issue here. |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Checked with Earwig's Copyvio tool: no issue. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | No issue here. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | No issue here. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No issue here. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No issue here. |
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. | All correct. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | No issue here. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Mostly there - just a few adjustments under 2a needed.
|