Talk:Dominic of Evesham/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Serial Number 54129 (talk · contribs) 16:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Great article, can see only open thing preventing immediate promotion.

1. Is it well written?

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

   Made a very light copy edit here, just a couple of obvious things.

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

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:

   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:

   All the journals are peer-reviewed academic journals, and likewise, the books and e-material are published by respected presses and authored by 20th-century experts in the field.

   /Writings, para 3 needs an inline citation per MOS:SUBSTANTIATE.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig is clear; no Google hits.

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):

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:

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

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

   Self-published, CC-BY-SA-3.0

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

   Although WP:ALTTEXT is not mandatory, it seems increasingly recommended.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

A couple of prose suggestions, for the future perhaps, and certainly nothing to hold up promotion over. (Emphasis on "Suggestions"!) SN54129 17:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Duplication of "works" at end of the lead.
• Ditto "probably born...probably raised..."
• "he became prior of Evesham" -- perhaps "was elected the Abbey's prior" to save duplicating Evesham.
• "He had been replaced as prior by 1150" is pretty short; how about combining it with the preceding sentence; as in: "He may have witnessed a further charter of Foliot's in 1133, but is known to have been replaced as prior by 1150".
• Should Latin titles use {{lang|la-x-medieval|---}}
  • I generally don't bother - we use too many templates as it is, honestly. I don't see what that template gains the reader. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Might be worth linking Relics; it's one of those words that everyone thinks they know but is a bit more specific than they realise.
• "a 13th-century manuscript, which is an early collection of some of the works" -- "a 13th-century collection of several of his writings". Tighter and avoids duplicating "works" from the previous sentence.
• "that he had altered both by omitting information and adding information" -- perhaps "that he had altered each by both omitting and adding information"?
• "is not like Dominic's" -- is dissimilar to?
• "according to D. C. Cox" -- now just Cox, introduced in the previous para.
• "His most influential work" -- Dominic's, as the last chap mentioned was Cox.
• Maybe link Chained Library.

  SN54129 17:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  • I got all of the above but the template. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

    Passing, obvs 🙂 SN54129 07:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)