Talk:Benin Moat/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: FuzzyMagma (talk · contribs) 08:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this. Good luck for both of us FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

This is a WP:QUICKFAIL. I'll list some of the many issues below.

General comments

• There is alot of use of MOS:FLOWERY and MOS:WEASEL terms which need to be addressed, also check the article for words to watch. Some examples "this intricate system of", "a testament to the grandeur of", "the powerful Benin Empire", and many many more

Lead

• The article lead Need does not summarise the article and it need to be expanded
• The citation need to be removed and incorporated into the article.
• 2,510 square .. need to be in inside a {{convert}} template
• 2,510 is not included anywhere in the text
• it is not clear if the building still exists or not

History section

• Need expansion to include more details into the history of the building itself, the construction process, partial-destruction (if that occurred), and what exits of it. all of this is not included. This is the crux of the article.
• There is not mention of architecture and design, exterior, or any details about the building itself
• "Historical significance of Benin City" section should be a separate section that outline the symbolism of the structure. The section as it stands is a mix of "symbolism" and "history" which need to be separated
• "Urban core and protective Moats" section is a sudden jump with no clear context. is this the context of where the moat exists? if yes it need to move at the top of this section
• "Endurance amidst modern expansion", this section make sense and will support the whole section when the history of the moat is written properly. The section should be titled "Current state"
• wikilink "Oba" and "Oguola"

The Moat

• "truly monumental dimensions" = MOS:FLOWERY and MOS:WEASEL terms. The main question also is who is saying this?
• "Origins rooted in history" section need expansion and need to be under "Symbolism" section

UNESCO World Heritage Site

• This recognition highlights the historical and cultural significance of the moat in representing the architectural and engineering achievements of the Edo people. this is surely WP:OR
• I stopped here as this is clearly a Quick fail but please also fix the images lay out, Wikipedia is not an image repository.

References

• Pages are needed for the citations from books.

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):

   need extensive copy editing. WP:WTW is a recurring issue. See also above about layout and the lead.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Not fully evaluated due to WP:QUICKFAIL. But OR was spotted see above and missing book pages

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   No, the article does not even scratch the surface when it comes to coverage.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Not evaluated due to WP:QUICKFAIL.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Not evaluated due to WP:QUICKFAIL.

7. Overall: This is far from ready and qualifies for a WP:QUICKFAIL primarily under criteria 1. The article also need further expansion. it is a good start but not a good article.

   Pass/Fail:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.