Talk:Tithonus poem/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 14:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

This is potentially a GA – it is certainly an enjoyable read and seems authoritative – but the lead falls short of GA standards. See WP:LEAD – at the moment the lead fails on two counts: it contains material not in the main text and doesn't summarise much that is there. It should briefly mention the history, content and structure of, and scholarly dissentions about, the poem.

• As to the main text, this is not a requirement (GAs haven't got to be comprehensive) but I suggest you add a short introductory section putting Sappho in context. Of course your readers can simply click on the blue link, but do you really want them going away from your carefully written article before they've read more than a few words of it?

  This certainly does sound like a good idea, and I'll have a think about the best way to do this. There may be room for a section on authorship with discussion of how we know that the poem is by Sappho along with some context on Sappho...

• Links: I ought to be pressing you to link "Oxford University" and "The Daily Telegraph", but I think we link far too much, and if you ignore this exhortation I shall not repine.

  I don't think Oxford University or the Daily Telegraph really require linking: both of them are likely to be understood by readers, and neither are really relevant to the topic at hand. (Okay, non-Brits might not know much about the Telegraph, but the only relevant point here is that it is a newspaper, which is surely clear from context...) I have linked Aeolic dialect and Eva-Maria Voigt (the latter currently a red-link, but if I can find enough about her I'll whip up a short article...)

• Metre: the last few words of the section go off the rails with clashing negatives and positives; I think turning "nor" into "or" will restore equilibrium.

  Well spotted; "nor" should indeed be "or". Fixed.

• Notes: I chuckled at your choice of Greek characters for the footnotes, but I feel it my po-faced duty to point out that "a – f" would be more accessible for some of our readers.

  This is a ten-second fix. Changed.

The only thing of substance, above, is the question of the lead. I'll put the review on hold for a week to give you time to address the point. Tim riley talk 14:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I always find writing leads the hardest part of wikipedia articles, but I've done my best here. How does it look now? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I so agree about writing leads. I don't know many editors who enjoy it or think themselves much good at it; I certainly don't. This one will do now, I think. It covers all the major points and gives a fair overview. That being so, let us proceed to the ribbon-cutting:

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I enjoyed this article, and it was a pleasure to review it. – Tim riley talk 11:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)