Talk:Chalke

Latest comment: 15 years ago by Cplakidas in topic GA Review
Good articleChalke has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 26, 2009Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 18, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the removal of an icon of Christ from the Chalke, the main ceremonial entrance to the Great Palace of Constantinople, marked the beginning of the Byzantine Iconoclasm?

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:Chalke/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Overall summary

edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


A short, but comprehensive and well-written, article on an Byzantine topic.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    B. MoS compliance:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    Well-referenced.
    B. Focused:  
    Well-referenced.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
    Well-referenced.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
    Well-referenced.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  

Congratulations on the quality of the article, I'm awarding GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot! Cheers, Constantine 00:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply