Talk:Regalianus/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 10:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The article covers an interesting topic appropriate for the wikipedia audience, particularly those interested in the Crisis of the Third Century and members of WP:CGR. 91.4% of authorship is one user, Ichthyovenator. It is currently rated both a Stub and a Start class article, assessed by Kingbotk and Lincher respectively (both in 2006). Extensive editing has been carried out on 21 August 2021 so it is ripe for reassessment.

Assessment

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.	A few minor corrections: Correct "pronounciation" to "pronunciation" Amend "a imperial" to "an imperial" Capitalise "Hungarian" All done.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Consider removing the citation in the lead as per WP:LEADCITE. Done
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.
	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).	Citations are peer reviewed article and De Imperatoribus Romanis.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No obvious violations found with Earwig's Copyvio Detector.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article acknowledges the scarcity of material and includes a non-English source to fill in the gaps.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article covers a range of views, presented with verified sources.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.	Images are tagged as public domain or Creative Commons licenses
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Although this is not a GA criteria, consider adding ALT tags as this is good practice.
	7. Overall assessment.	Congratulations. This article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

@Ichthyovenator: Please take a look at the comments above. simongraham (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

simongraham I've addressed the comments! Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: Excellent work. I will complete the review. simongraham (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2021 (UTC)