Talk:Tacitean studies/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There is a severe deficiency in references. Combined with the fact that much of the article is written in an essay-like style, this gives the distinct impression of WP:OR. Language like "it is interesting to note that", "A remarkable feat was accomplished by Robert Graves" and "...no doubt, Tacitus remains the first author mentioned in this list." does not belong in an encyclopaedic article. The section titled "20th century" is the worst offender, where practically the whole thing reads like an essay. When parts like "Enlightenment and Revolutions" and "21st century" have hardly any references, it comes off as WP:OR, whether it is or not.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Hard to tell with so few references.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Lampman (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Since no significant improvements have been made to the article over the last week, I will now delist it. Lampman (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)