Jump to content

Talk:Types of Women

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Text of Poem

[edit]

I thought the version of the poem I added to the page was an old translation in public domain. I'll verify before adding one back in, but I do think that having the text will be helpful. —Zujine|talk 00:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zujine, The text's source URL didn't mention that a date or a translator if I remember correctly. While I certainly agree that quoting is a really good idea, I'm not sure that Wikipedia (rather than Wikisource) is the best place to host a full translation? Anyway, if you can find one, I certainly won't remove it ;). Brigade Piron (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Types of Women/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Katolophyromai (talk · contribs) 17:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. I have read through it once and it seems to be a very promising candidate. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 (references):
    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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Comments:

  1. I have re-read the article several times over and the writing quality is clearly top-notch.
  2. The article is well-cited and contains plenty of references.
  3. The article provides an extensive overview of the poem in question.
  4. The article has no problems with POV; all of the opinions described in the article are clearly attributed to modern scholars and are not spoken in Wikipedia's voice.
  5. The article is completely stable. I could find no trace of edit-warring or vandalism in the recent article history and the content of the article remains consistent from day-to-day.
  6. The image of the archaic figurine of the pig is an excellent addition to the article, but, if you can find an image of a Greek manuscript of the poem itself, that might be a better image to use for the main image. The pig image might fit better in the "Content" section.

Overall, I think that this article is a clear and easy pass. It thoroughly addresses all of the GA criteria. If you think I have made a mistake and this article is not yet ready, please let me know. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]