Talk:Renaissance in Scotland/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 10:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 10:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Great. Look forward to it.--SabreBD (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.

I've already done a quick read of the article, and it appears to be at or about GA level. I'm now working my way through the body of the article and then I'll go back and look at the Lead.

• Definitions and debates -

• Looks OK. I just added a couple of wikilinks whilst I was working my way through this section.

• Court and kingship -

• Looks OK. I added some wikilinks whilst I was working my way through this section, and I believe that Constantine (in the second paragraph) should be linked, but there are quite a few Constantine's to choose from.

• I linked this and Solomon - since only his temple had been linked before.--SabreBD (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Education -

... Stopping for now. Pyrotec (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Looks OK.

• Literature -

• Looks OK.

• Architecture -

• Looks OK. I seem to remember reviewing and awarding, a well-deserved, GA-status to the {{main article}} a month or so ago.

• Art & Music-

... Stopping for now. Pyrotec (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Both sections look OK, but I added one or two wikilinks.

• Decline and influence -

• Looks OK. I just added one wikilink.

• WP:Lead -

This is quite a "compact" lead for an article of this length. It appears to perform what is needed to comply with WP:Lead, with possibly one exception. I don't think it summarises anything in the Court and kingship section - one of seven sections excluding Definitions and debates (and Notes). Nevertheless, I going to award GA-status, for the reasons given later.

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

An informative and well-referenced article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

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:

   B. Focused:

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

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm pleased to be able to award this article GA-status. Its quite a strong GA and (I'd suggest WP:PR first) I suspect that it could make it through WP:FAC provided that someone is willing to nominate it and fix the issues that may arrive during that review. My own view is that the WP:Lead may need a bit more "meat", but perhaps not much more, to get through FAC. As noted in the previous subsection, the lead might not be summarising material in the Court and kingship section. Pyrotec (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for a helpful review and a few points to keep in mind for the future.--SabreBD (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)