Talk:Epicurus/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Gug01 (talk · contribs) 00:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Seems to have been a little kerfuffle this month over Epicurus and the Golden Rule, but nothing major. As it was 3 edits and several days ago, I don't think it greatly undermines the stability of the article.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	This is a great, well-written article that goes in depth into Epicurus and his philosophy, but every minute detail is important, not a pointless minutia. I highly suggesting nominating for a Featured Article after a little more preparation.

@Gug01: Thank you so much for the review! I really appreciate it. I worked very hard on this article and I am extremely excited to see it finally promoted to "Good Article" status! --Katolophyromai (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Katolophyromai: Good job on the article! Gug01 (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]