Talk:Amulet MS 5236/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- 1a - Prose
- The prose is unclear in a number of places. For instance, "despite the singularity of the foil,"; "The lamella is registered" (what is a lamella?). There are also a number of sentences that are overlong and ill-constructed (e.g. the sentence beginning "The second step....".
- 1b - Style
- There are two sections of two paragraphs, and one section of only one paragraph. The lead section is only one paragraph. Longer sections (and a longer lead) are really needed.
- 2 - Sources & References
- No issues here - I consider the sources used to be reliable enough for the purpose of a GA though I am sure they would meet with issues at FAC.
- 3 - Broad & Focused
- This is a very short article. This would not necessarily be a problem, were there no more to say. But I think more can be added to this article: a little more about the palaeography; the rarity of 6th-century amulets; the likely presence of hexameter. I am sure a detailed reading of the sources would give more suggestions.
- 4, 5, 6 - Neutrality, stability, illustration
- No issues here.
On the whole I am unable to pass this nomination & the amount of work is probably such that "on hold" isn't appropriate. So it's a fail. However happy to review this again if you re-nominate it at some stage.