Talk:Siege of Sparta/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 11:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments

This article looks in promising shape for GAN. A few drafting points:

• the wording has got itself in an impenetrable tangle at "she would commit suicide rather tif the city fell Cleonymus to Pyrrhus". Usually one can see what a garbled phrase is intended to mean, but this one defeats me.
  • The wording was abysmal in that sentence. Hopefully it makes more sense now.
• this is a matter of style and therefore not something on which the GA criteria permit the reviewer to insist, but I think the nine incidences of "however" in the text weaken the prose ("howevers" almost always do), and in all nine cases their removal would be an improvement.
  • I have removed all of the 'however's.
• the word "slain" in the lead strikes me as a bit quaint, but again, such a drafting point is no bar to promotion to GA.
  • I replaced slain with killed, which sounds a bit more encyclopaedic.
• There are four incidences of "In order to" which would be better trimmed to just "To".
  • Done.
• Sources
  • Odd mix of locations – "United Kingdom: Routledge", but "Oxford: Oxford University Press", followed by "United Kingdom: Oxford University Press". The town or city is usual, rather than the country, but consistency whichever you choose, please.
    • Changed them all to town or city of printing.
  • No ISBN for Wallbank?
    • Added.
• Duplicate links: Epirus and Macedon within the lead, and war elephants, Megalopolis and Eurypontid King in the main text.
  • I removed the duplicates.

Nothing too difficult to put right there. I'll put the review on hold to give you a week to address the various points. Tim riley talk 11:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I hope that I have adequately addressed all of your concerns. Kyriakos (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

You have. I leave you to consider how to deal with the link in the lead image (and in the popular culture section) to a non-existent page on French WP. Leave the name intact but blitz the link would be my advice.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I see you have a related article up for GAN, and unless another reviewer gets to it first I hope to look in later in the week. Meanwhile, this article is a worthy promotee to GA. – Tim riley talk 16:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)