Talk:Zoe Porphyrogenita/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Chetsford (talk · contribs) 18:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Well written

• This is very well written and there's not much on which to comment. A few notes:

• Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, articles of this length should have a 1-2 paragraph lead. The current lead is three paragraphs.
• Per MOS:DATEUNIFY, a single dating convention should be used throughout the article. Presently there are instances of both "DAY MONTH YEAR" and "MONTH DAY, YEAR". This needs to be standardized to one or the other.
• This sentence - "As her first act Theodora was called upon to do what her sister would not: deal with Michael V. Zoë, weak and easily manipulated, wanted to pardon and free Michael, but Theodora was clear and adamant." is a little clunky and confusing. Could it be rewritten or broken into two?
• This portion of the sentence - "His not having sired any sons forced her" - is also a bit clunky.
• In the first section there is a malformed file insertion of The murder of Romanos III in his bath.jpg which is not displaying.
• I believe this sentence - "As an eligible imperial princess she was considered a possible bride for the Holy Roman Emperor, Otto III in 996." should either have a comma after "Otto III" (thereby making it a paranthetical expression) or no comma after emperor. I think either way is equally correct, but only having a comma after emperor is maybe not.

Verifiable

• Plagiarism: Earwig returns "violation suspected," however, the suspected violation appears to be a WP mirror site so I'm counting this as a false positive.
• Original Research: There is no evidence of OR.
• Sourcing: The article is completely sourced and the sources meet the standards of WP:RS, almost all being books from academic publishers. Two of the sources are online and I have verified the accuracy of the content referenced to them. A third source (Norwich) I have a copy of which I have also verified. Other sources I could not access readily, however, the statements they're being used to reference are either supported by alternate sources I was able to locate or are so incidental that GF could be assumed. The only issue, therefore, is a source for the location of her burial. Her burial at the Church of the Holy Apostles is mentioned in the infobox without a source and I don't see a source in the body of the article that would allow the infobox mention to go without an inline citation.

Broad in coverage

• I compared the text of this article against the treatment of Zoë Porphyrogenita on britannica.com and this article is more thorough and eclipses all relevant information contained in the article on the basis of which I believe this is a broad, encyclopedic treatment of the subject. The only possible issue is in discussion of Porphyrogenita's obsession with her physical appearance which received some additional details at this University of Iowa page [1] and in a 2012 issue of the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology [2]. However, the article does touch on this in the last paragraph and to go into further detail would, I think, be WP:UNDUE.

Neutral

• Neutral: There is no evidence of bias and the article is presented with a NPOV, however, I might optionally suggest removing the word "happy" in "happy couple" as it presumes a knowledge of their emotional state the source seems to use in a more colloquial sense.

Stable

• Stable: The only substantial edits in 2018 are from the nom. There are no active discussions or disputes on the Talk page.

Illustrated

• Relevant / Captioned: There are two images, which is good for an article of this size. Both are correctly and usefully captioned. The images do not have ALT tags, however, this is not a requirement for GA.
• [[

File:Symbol_support_vote.svg|20px]]

Licensing: All images are correctly licensed.

Chetsford (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Chetsford: As I don't disagree with any of your comments I hope that it is acceptable to respond once rather than put "Done" against each. That looked like a thorough job. Thank you. Apologies for some sloppiness on my part. All addressed, hopefully acceptably. The only irritating one was her burial place. It almost certainly was the Church of the Holy Apostles but as I can't lay my hands on a reference (grr) I have deleted this and left it as "Constantinople", and sourced this. Thanks for the thorough job and for the detailed notes; I have picked up several hints to use in my own future assessments. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Gog the Mild - looks good! This was an excellent article and, as a result, the easiest GA review I've ever done! Chetsford (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.