Talk:Bohemond IV of Antioch/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 01:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I am going to give this article a review for possible WP:GA status. Shearonink (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   It's probably just me but I am having a hard time getting through the names and keeping them all straight - I think I just need to read the article a few more times before I give a Yes to this parameter. Shearonink (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   The lead is too detailed, it should give a summary or an overview. Shearonink (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

   This issue has been corrected sufficiently. Shearonink (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   References all look good to go. Shearonink (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Wow, the references are all from prominent, recently-published sources. Good job. Shearonink (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   Good to go. Shearonink (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Copyvio tool shows this article as being clean as a whistle. Shearonink (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Now passes this parameter. Shearonink (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No edit wars, article seems very stable. Shearonink (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All the permissions are valid. Shearonink (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The main issue at this point is the length of the lead and its detailed information. Everything else looks pretty good - I'm going to do some more proofreading-readthroughs to see if there's anything I've possibly missed. Shearonink (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

   The lead has now been sufficiently edited to pass the GA-MOS issues. Shearonink (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

   Congrats, it's a GA! Shearonink (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, for your comprehensive review and supporting approach. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 05:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)