Talk:Panagiotis Stamatakis

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mychemicalromanceisrealemo (talk · contribs) 15:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	No issue. Clear, concise, and cohesive.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Follows all guidelines mentioned. As a minor note, quote boxes are not advised in articles as {{blockquote}} is preferred, but the former is common enough that it's really not a big deal in my opinion. Further, outside of plant cultivars and glosses, double quotation marks should be used rather than single ones (see MOS:SINGLE). Once again, minor (but should be fixed).
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	No issue.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	No issue.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No issue.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No issue.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No issue.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No issue.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issue.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issue.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No issue.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No issue.
	7. Overall assessment.	Meets all criteria. The only minor issues are the ones described in 1b, however compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style or its subpages is not required for good articles as per WP:GACR.

Will get to this soon.--MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 15:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! UndercoverClassicist (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I've now corrected the MOS:SINGLE errors. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Panagiotis Stamatakis and Heinrich Schliemann quarrelled so much during their excavations at Mycenae that they spoke only through intermediaries? Source: In article: Vasilikou 2011, p107
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by UndercoverClassicist (talk). Self-nominated at 18:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Panagiotis Stamatakis, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• This article has been recently promoted to GA, is long enough, and is well-sourced. The article is written neutrally, and a check with Earwig finds no plagiarism. The hook is formatted correctly, interesting, and cited inline by a source in Greek which loads slowly for me, so I am assuming good faith. UndercoverClassicist only has one DYK credit, so QPQ is not required. Overall, great work. gobonobo ^{+ c} 16:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  • @Gobonobo: I notice this is still showing as 'pending' - should it be? If so, what's the next step? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
    • @UndercoverClassicist: It looks like this is in the approved list now. gobonobo ^{+ c} 13:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
      • Thanks - I can see that now. Just a heads up: it looks as though the DYK for Grip (raven) also links to this page. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)