Talk:Condemnations of 1210–1277/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments

After a quick read-through this article appears to be at or about GA-level. I will now do a more detailed review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Condemnation of 1270 -

• I assume that there is a typo in the statement:- "However, it seems "inconceivable" that any teacher would present deny God's Providence or present the Aristotelian "Unmoved Mover" as the true God.[8]". I assume that it should read - "However, it seems "inconceivable" that any teacher would present deny God's Providence or present the Aristotelian "Unmoved Mover" as the true God.[8]"?

• • Effects -

• This:- "(Ironically, the concept of vacuum energy in quantum mechanics now shows that empty space, devoid of both matter and energy, is not possible.)" appears to be, possibly, a point of view or original research. Can be it be validated by means of a citation?

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A readable, well-referenced, well-illustrated article.

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 have left two (unanswered) comments above. Other than resolving these two minor points, I consider that the article is fully compliant with the requirements of a GA. I'm therefore awarding GA status. Congratulations on the quality of the article. Pyrotec (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)