Talk:Sophia Parnok/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Katolophyromai (talk · contribs) 21:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I will review this article. I have read it over a few times and it looks like it is a promising candidate for GA. I have nominated the articles ancient Greek literature and Philaenis in this category, as well as the articles Inanna, Enlil, Anunnaki, Athena, Jonah, and Pythagoras in the "Philosophy and religion" category, all of which are currently awaiting review. I also have several other articles I am working on that I will probably nominate in the near future. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

This article is clearly GA material beyond any doubt. I found the article especially interesting since I am one of the contributors to the article Sappho and I thought it was interesting to hear about "Russia's Sappho" (whose identity as a lesbian is, ironically, judging from this article and the sources it cites, apparently much less contentious than that of Sappho herself, since there are still many scholars who argue that is anachronistic to label Sappho as a "lesbian").

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments

1. This article is extremely well-written and was pleasurable to read.
2. The article is well-referenced with no uncited content that I could discover. It even has a consistent citation formatting, which is truly impressive for an article of this length.
3. The article adequately covers all aspects of the subject in question, including her life, works, and legacy.
4. As far as I could tell, the content of the article was fair and unbiased.
5. The article uses a number of helpful images, including a portrait of Parnok herself, a photograph of the house where she was born, and a portrait of Marina Tsvetaeva.

All in all, I think that this is a clear and easy pass. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and @SusunW:, I thought I would remind that it is generally recommended that nominators should try to review at least two articles for every article they nominate and there is currently quite a long backlog for the "Language and literature" section (which I am sure is somewhat self-evident by the fact that this article has been awaiting review for the past six months). I am sure this is probably unnecessary and I do not mean to pull your arm or anything, but I have been trying to remind all of the nominators whose articles I review. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Katolophyromai Thank you so much for the review of the article. Truly appreciate your time in evaluating her biography. Upon my return from abroad, I'll take a look at the list and see if I am able to reciprocate a review. SusunW (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)