Jump to content

Talk:Bidni/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 08:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley talk 08:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

There are some points that need working on:

  • Use of bold type for "Bitni" and "Bidni" in the main text: fine in the first line of the lead but you need to lose the bolding throughout the rest of the article. (Manual of Style).
  • "oil which is thought to be low in acidity" – thought to be? Hasn't it been checked scientifically?
  • "This dispels several online sources" – dispels? Contradicts, possibly.
  • Block quote: we do not use quotation marks to introduce and conclude block quotes (MOS:BQ).
  • "Olive Oil Times" – needs italicising.
  • "Malta's ancient Bidni olive trees, which have been confirmed through carbon dating" – it is not the trees but their antiquity that has been confirmed.
  • "still bear fruit, however their olives" – stronger stop than a comma needed.
  • "this statistic comes as no surprise" – you should remove the WP:EDITORIAL
  • "predominant, testimony" – stronger stop than a comma needed.
  • "eat these ... serve these" – "them" would be clearer than "these" here
  • "On a different note" – more editorialising.

I'll put the review on hold to give you time to deal with these points. Tim riley talk 09:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Following the nominator's recent changes I think the article now meets the GA criteria, so ...

Overall summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria In my judgment this article could be a worthy candidate for WP:FAC.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Well referenced
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well referenced
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Well illustrated
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well illustrated
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I found this a pleasing, and indeed instructive, article to review. It gives me great pleasure to promote it to GA status. - Tim riley talk 16:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]