Talk:Historia Augusta/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mr rnddude (talk · contribs) 11:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi there I will be taking on the review of this article, expect a full review up by tomorrow or the day after. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:50, 2 August 2016 (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.	All issues with prose have been cleared, therefore, this criterion is a pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I am satisfied that this article meets the criteria, it is cleanly broken up into appropriate sections and section titles, the article is neatly laid out, I haven't come across nearly any puffery, as this is a work about a non-fictional topic the MOS fiction requirements do not apply and the embedded lists (I count two) are neatly and correctly set out.
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.	The issues with the layout of the sources has been fixed. The sources are verifiable and attribution has been properly made.
	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).	I am reasonably confident that all of the sources used are of repute and are reliable secondary sources, this is a combination of having used some of these sources myself and the known publications. Note; I removed a large set duplinks in the article, normally only the first instance of a word in an article is linked.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The below issues have been rectified and this article is now good to pass criterion 2c.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	It's highly likely that a copyright violation has occurred. That copyright violation exists because a University thinks it's appropriate to just wholesale lift other peoples' work and not even attribute it. I know we're accessible to everyone, but, what a dick move. Students are denied the right to use Wikipedia for their assessment pieces, so why are their lecturer's and institutions allowed to use it to deliver lectures?
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article covers the topic excellently, this article meets this criterion.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article is written well, it covers the major points of the history, authorship, use as both a historical and literary source and does so without going into excruciating and minute detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	There is an insignificant issue of puffery, a single minute instance of it in the article, that will be dealt with under criterion 1a.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is in a stable condition, there aren't any outstanding disputes on the article or on the talk page. I will be looking at how Furius' suggestions were incorporated and note that they don't require all (or even any) of their suggestions to be included.
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.	I made a slight amendment to the PD-art tag of trebellianus, it had an error tag show up because the PD-1923 tag needs to also be included in the image. Other than that, all the image issues have been resolved.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The licenses for a few images need an update; Herman Dessau and Trebellianus can be update by the nominator, we'll have to await confirmation from the uploader of CiceroBust before I can prescribe a necessary action there. That said, all of the captions on the images are suitable.
	7. Overall assessment.	For the time being I have identified some license issues. I am about to go through and check the substance of the article. I have also noted a likely copyright violation that needs addressing, as per, Earwig's copyvio detector. I also note a couple possible WP:OR violations under 2c. I have also identified some issues minor prose and punctuation issues with 1a. All of the issues that I'd found with the article have been rectified, as such, this article is good to go for GA.

I will be using the above table to complete the review for this article. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for beginning the review, looking forward to working with you to get the GA! Oatley2112 (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oatley2112, I have completed my initial review of this article, my most pressing concerns are with criterion 2d and, less immediately, 2c. The copyvio should be addressed immediately, I am putting this review on hold to give you a chance to handle this issue and the others as well. I can give you a week for 2d and if you'd like another week after that to deal with everything else (if you can handle it earlier, that too is fine, even preferred). This is of course dependent upon your availability. In any case, I must say that this is an excellent article overall and one I hope goes on to A and FA. Feel free to ping me if you need anything. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Mr rnddude, thank you for the review, it is greatly appreciated. I will look these over and address the concerns over the next 3-4 days; however, just quickly on 2d, as Furius has noted on the Talk:Augustan_History page, the Wikipedia article is the primary article for those sections and the UIowa version is the copy. Oatley2112 (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

8Hi Mr rnddude, just a quick note that I have added an additional sentence under Literary value, adding the opinion of M. L. W. Laistner. Let me know if you are happy with it. Oatley2112 (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Is fine. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)