Talk:Historiography of the Christianization of the Roman Empire/GA3
GA Review
editThe 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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 12:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Introduction
|
---|
Jenhawk777, I intend to review this article. As it is rather lengthy, I will divide this review up into a few stages. Firstly, I will ask preliminary questions and make straightforward edits to conform to the MOS; secondly, I will make a general review of the article, including a source spot-check; thirdly, if the article has passed the previous two stages, I will review the article in detail. Please let me know if this method is acceptable for you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
I love this script! It makes it so easy to tell if, when I remove a sentence - or ten - if those were the only uses of a particular reference. I am amazed and impressed. So those are gone now, and the bibliography is beautiful again.
Refs are Done. Notes are Done. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC) |
GA Review table
editMoving on, @Jenhawk777: GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Perhaps one or two minor errors; we'll check later.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, Done layout Done, words to watch, Done
fiction,and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- 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:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Earwig shows a 50% similarity with this website, from which several experts are cited. Based on their use in the text, I deem this satisfactory.
- ~~ AirshipJungleman29 Those are quotes, but for some reason that I can't explain Earwig flags them every time. I have thought of removing them entirely, they are just single sentences, but they are such pertinent summations of other material that would be longer, and they are by recognized highly respected scholars, so I left them. Thank you for recognizing that!Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Earwig don't know that quotes are quotes (or backwards copies), so it always needs a human interpreter, you can't follow it blindly. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- It seems to have recognized all my other quotes but those! It just doesn't like them! I take it personally... Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Earwig don't know that quotes are quotes (or backwards copies), so it always needs a human interpreter, you can't follow it blindly. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- ~~ AirshipJungleman29 Those are quotes, but for some reason that I can't explain Earwig flags them every time. I have thought of removing them entirely, they are just single sentences, but they are such pertinent summations of other material that would be longer, and they are by recognized highly respected scholars, so I left them. Thank you for recognizing that!Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Earwig shows a 50% similarity with this website, from which several experts are cited. Based on their use in the text, I deem this satisfactory.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- 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):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- 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:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Random source spot-check
editIn this section I will randomly spot-check a number of sources for accuracy to the text; this is to check the article against 2c) of the GA criteria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
spotcheck passed
|
---|
Overall, then, the fifteen citations are all relevant to some degree; four have minor issues, and one has attribution issues. This is not enough to prevent me as marking 2c) as fulfilled. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
|
Lead section
editBack. Let's get this started, Jenhawk777.
MOS:LEAD passed
|
---|
Let me know if you think anything was missed or if you have any questions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
~~ AirshipJungleman29 Done I have reduced all citations of four or more throughout the entire article. This also created corresponding problems in the bibliography, so those refs w/o citations are now gone as well. The page and pages are correct. This all went much faster than I expected. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
|
WtW, layout, & list incorporation
edit- On a quick read-through, I can't find much breaking the words to watch guideline. However, as this is a very academic article, make sure you always note MOS:AWW, MOS:EDITORIAL and MOS:SAID.
- There are, however, breaches of the list incorporation guideline, in the notes. Note 6 and 7 should both be combined into prose. I will address their necessity when we discuss unnecessary detail in the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- I did that because I don't know how to create separate paragraphs in a note. I write it with paragraphs and the note automatically combines it into one long block. Is there some way to prevent that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- ~~ AirshipJungleman29 This has yet to be addressed and I don't want to miss anything that you want done. Can you help me with this? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- {{parabr}} should do the trick. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- ~~ AirshipJungleman29 Bless you and thank you! That really does look so much better! I learned something new, and that is always awesome. This is great! Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- {{parabr}} should do the trick. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- ~~ AirshipJungleman29 This has yet to be addressed and I don't want to miss anything that you want done. Can you help me with this? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- I did that because I don't know how to create separate paragraphs in a note. I write it with paragraphs and the note automatically combines it into one long block. Is there some way to prevent that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
- The see also section can be trimmed. Several links can be incorporated into the article if they aren't already; others, such as Reconstructionist Roman religion, can be exclude.
- Single or two-sentence paragraphs can generally be combined with others, unless they are somehow very long.
- Do you think that the further reading section has a reasonable number of publications? Too many? Too few? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- No, I don't think further reading is reasonable. I have trimmed it for the third time now! I also trimmed see also. I will look at combining paragraphs while I check attributions and wtw. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- All Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Have shortened the first section considerably. No failures of attribution or wtw that I saw. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- No, I don't think further reading is reasonable. I have trimmed it for the third time now! I also trimmed see also. I will look at combining paragraphs while I check attributions and wtw. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- ~~ AirshipJungleman29 I have trimmed and shortened everything I am able to with a clear conscience. The detail remaining is what I consider absolutely necessary to adequately summarize what is usually complex detailed information. I have boiled it down as far as I dare imo. No doubt you will feel differently, and I will do my best to cooperate or explain. At any rate, I think everything mentioned here is Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Neutrality and detail
editFurther comments
|
---|
I will address these issues together. May take a while, and may involve me advising you to cut/change things you feel are essential, so sorry in advance for that. To start us off, here are some preliminary recommendations:
Okay, thank you for making that call. I couldn't. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Further comments:
|
Jenhawk777, I think that's about it for me. Keeping the good article criteria and this essay in mind, I feel that this article is ready for promotion. If the article were to face a GAR, I think it would be on charges it doesn't meet 3b); I think that the concept of 'unnnecessary detail' differs from person to person, and to me, this article is satisfactory on that count. I will note that it is definitely below FA standard, so a nomination there will require significant efforts, should you wish to pursue that course. Congratulations on the promotion, and thanks to you and others for working collaboratively with me over the past three weeks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)