Talk:The Dictator Pope/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Slightlymad (talk · contribs) 07:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I will take over this nomination; pinging the article's major contributor, Claíomh Solais. Seems like a nice read, the book, that is.

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   (1) Some minor quibbles in the lead: I would instead WL Catholic and delink Catholic Church, as the former redirects to the latter article anyway, and fix the curly quotation mark per MOS:CURLY. (2) There is a liberal amount of the word "claim," which WP:CLAIM states that we should avoid. (3) WL The Catholic Thing without piping, and I don't believe LifeSiteNews and ChurchMilitant.com should be italicized. (4) Fix grammar in "'Colonna' specific accuses", and "an rumor". (5) WP:SCAREQUOTES in "humbleness"; I suggest amending this with the unquoted wikilinked word humility.

 Done. --🎼Yexstorm2001🎼 (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   (1) In FN 2,The Catholic Herald should be in the "work" parameter. (2) FN 3 links to The Spectator, not The Australian, and Australian should be in "work" para. (3) The article in FN 4 needs subscription and not even a snippet is present. I suggest adding an archived version of the piece. (4) "work" parameter for First Things in FN 5. (5) WL The Catholic Thing FN 7. (6) WL The Remnant FN 9. (7) "Publisher" parameter for Church Militant FN 10. (8) Needs citations per WP:INTEGRITY in, "some holding interviews with the author." (9) Unsourced: "The Vatican has not made an official statement regarding the book."

 Done. --🎼Yexstorm2001🎼 (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The length seems lightweight for GA standards, but it's satisfactory and appears everything has been honestly covered from the sources available.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   (1) The cover needs a detailed FUR. (2) No periods in captions unless they follow complete sentences.

 Done. --🎼Yexstorm2001🎼 (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The article is an easy-read and is not far from reaching the much-coveted GA quality. Happy to pass once these are addressed. Slightlymad 07:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I did a little copyediting in the article and I believe the prose looks clean now (to my untrained eye). I shall mark it as a pass, well done! As this is a newly-promoted GA, you may want to nominate it for WP:DYK; more information can be found at that page. Slightlymad 04:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)