Talk:Vishtaspa/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: one found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   So for example the surviving fragments of a fragmentary text that celebrates the deeds of Zairivairi, Vishtaspa's brother and captain of his forces against Arejat.aspa, chief of the Hyonas. Makes no sense.

   and fourth that his body should not leave his soul until the resurrection. Is that the real intent? Or is it that his "soul shall not leave his body"?

   The lead does not fully summarise the article as mandated by WP:LEAD.

   I find the prose throughout to be dense and hard to follow, with over-long sentences and it lacks the clarity and readability of a good encyclopaedic article. I think it needs a through copy-edit to improve clarity and style. Try reading it out aloud to see where improvements could be made.

   I made some minor copy-edits.[2]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Article is well referenced, I assume good faith for all off-line sources.

   Journals and books should have ISBNs or ISSNs or doi links.

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:

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):

   No images used

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This is near to the GA standard, but I think the text could do with improving to make it "reasonably good prose". The lead needs some expansion to cover all sections of the article. On Hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

   There has been no response to this review, although the nominator has been notified so I am failing the nomination now. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)