Talk:Si Prat/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 19:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

All of my comments are open to discussion. Once complete, I will claim this review for points in the 2018 WikiCup. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Since it seems Kingoflettuce is busy at the moment, I'll try and see if I can address the issues (responses below). --Paul_012 (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

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

   These are my copy edits. Please review for accuracy and revert/revise if needed.

   I've modified the edit in the death section, since the poem doesn't explicitly mention beheading. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

   "masterpiece of punning and word play". - This quote should be attributed inline.

   I've provided attribution to Thomas J. Hudak, who presumably wrote the preface to his translated volume, where the quote is sourced from. I don't have full access to the book, however, so cannot be 100% sure. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

   "it has also been argued" - who is arguing? Is one position more widely accepted than another?

   Added attribution. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

   "Some scholars have suggested" I suggest adding "such as [specific scholar]" to avoid sounding weaselly. Same for the other scholars mentioned later in this sentence.

   Done. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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

   no concern

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

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

   no concern

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   No concern

   C. It contains no original research:

   The first sentence of the last paragraph under Historicity makes a strong claim for consensus doesn't have a citation. I assume it came from the same source as the following sentence?

   Yes. I've added an additional end-of-sentence citation. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   AGF for non-web / non-English sources. No concern

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   no concern

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

   no concern

4. Is it neutral?

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

   no concern

5. Is it stable?

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

   no concern

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

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

   no concern

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

   no concern

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   A few concerns need to be addressed before I can pass this. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

   • • • Thanks @Paul 012: - happy to promote this article. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)