Talk:Eunus/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

Nominator: Harren the Red (talk · contribs) 22:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Sir MemeGod (talk · contribs) 12:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I will be reviewing this shortly. :) SirMemeGod  12:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   The Lede looks good as of now, the only concern I have is changing the "is" that comes right before the "First Servile War" to "during".

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   No issues found, the "only" (also in the lede) may have been an issue but it technically is true. (It's also not part of the GA Criteria)  :)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   See below for the issue. Citerefs are hard, so I understand.

   B. 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):

   It's mainly books that are used as sources, but in this case it's okay. Citations are also cited inline, although the 2a issue somewhat affects that.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Although I do not have access to these books, I am assuming good faith that what is cited is in the publications. I may do a double-check shortly, but for now, this passes.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   I did find a ~24% similarity to Cambridge.org, but that seems too low to be considered flat-out plagarism.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   No issues that I could find, seems to touch on everything documented about them.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   As above, no issues found.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Everything seems to be NPOV, which is good and meets the criteria.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Edit War Checker found no issues, a look through page history shows no recent disputes.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

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

   Four images are present, which I think is adequate enough to meet the criteria. All images are properly sourced as well.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   All images do have captions, although the fourth one (The statue image) could have a longer caption by mentioning who made the work (e.g. "Eunus, as depicted in a statue by Leonardo DaVinci, located in Enna, Sicily.").

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   A few issues need fixed.

Pinging nominator Harren the Red (talk · contribs), placing on hold till issues are addressed. :) SirMemeGod  13:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! I've fixed the "during" (that sentence always bothered me, but I could not think of a fix that made it less awkward!) and added inline citations for the citeref sources so they actually belong in the bibliography. Please let me know if anything else comes up, and thank you once again! Harren the Red (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Everything looks good now. Congrats! SirMemeGod  14:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

2a issue

So there is a CITEREF issue that showed up with 3 of the sources linked (2 in the "Ancient Sources" section, and 1 in the "Modern Sources" section. Basically, a long book citation like the one in the "Bibliography" section should link to an inline citation. If you need any help feel free to ask, harvrefs are the bane of my existence. Other than that, the article looks good, besides the few issues I mentioned above! :) SirMemeGod  13:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
The broken references are:

Should be fixed now^^ Harren the Red (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Livy (2003). Periochae. Translated by Lendering, Jona – via Livius.org.
• Orosius, Paulus (1936) [5th century AD]. Histories against the Pagans [Seven books of history against the pagans: the apology of Paulus Orosius]. Translated by Raymond, I. W. – via Attalus.org.
• Donaldson, Adam E. (2012). Peasant and Slave Rebellion in the Roman Republic (PDF) (Doctor of Philosophy thesis). The University of Arizona.

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.