Talk:Stichometry

Comments

This material is not copyvio; the site found containing the same content is a poorly-labelled mirror of the 1911 EB. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a UK academic specializing in the history of ancient Greek philosophy and science. I've recently written, translated, or revised the Wikipedia pages of several scholars who made contributions to the study of stichometry: Charles Graux (classicist), Martin Schanz, and Theodor Birt. May I take on reorganizing and rewriting this page? Please let me know if anyone has any objections or suggestions. Thanks, JohnD'Alembert (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to strike while the iron is hot. There is a template on the present version of the page saying it needs a clean up to conform to Wikipedia's style. I'm going to replace it with my revised version. Any comments or criticism or improvements are welcome! JohnD'Alembert (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sever Juan: Thanks very much for nominating this article!

Thanks too to whoever added the section on kinds/definitions! I have taken one paragraph and moved it back to the opening section. But otherwise that's a good improvement. Super! JohnD'Alembert (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LegesRomanorum (talk · contribs) 18:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

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.	This article passes 1a, because the prose is written clearly, concisely and in good English. I have altered some of the phrasing where the English strikes me as slightly clumsy - in any case, this would not be a sufficient problem to fail 1a.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	This article also passes 1b, since it is written in a manner consistent with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. I re-ordered the first 3 sentences in the leading paragraph, to make sure it passes the lead sections manual of style.
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.	All references are presented in a list, in accordance with the Wikipedia Manual of Style for layout. I added publication details and date to the first Ohly reference to ensure that this is done correctly.
	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).	All the in-line citations are from rigorous and reliable sources (a mixture of ancient primary evidence and rigorous secondary scholarship).
	2c. it contains no original research.	This article contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This article passes 3a, since it addresses the main aspects of the topic (it is perhaps over-dependent on Ohly's 1928 work, but this is not a problem here since the topic is technical and not particularly large!).
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	It passes 3b, as it remains completely focused on the topic. Off the top of my head, I suspect that rather more research developments have been achieved using stichometry than are listed in the Recent Research and Applications section - however, this is not particularly problematic, given the criteria for a GA review.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	This article passes 4. This is a very technical topic, so conflicting viewpoints are rare. This article is even-handed and fair in citing scholarship and views on the topic.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	This article is entirely stable, and therefore passes 5.
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.	This article has 4 images illustrating it. They are all tagged with copyright status (Public Domain) and therefore pass 6a.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The images are all relevant to stichometry (notable scholars in the field/important examples of evidence within the field) and have suitable captions, so they pass 6b.
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall, this article meets the Good Article criteria, and passes this review.

@LegesRomanorum: thanks very much for reviewing and improving this article. Feels like a graduation ceremony! There's a surprising flow of viewers (with a spike of > 1000 in Sept.). JohnD'Alembert (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem, JohnD'Alembert! Also, do let me know if there's anything a humble BA student in Classics (principally literature, linguistics and textual criticism) can help with. :) LegesRomanorum (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)