Talk:Types of Women/GA1

GA Review

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

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)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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:

I have re-read the article several times over and the writing quality is clearly top-notch.
The article is well-cited and contains plenty of references.
The article provides an extensive overview of the poem in question.
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.
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.
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]