Talk:Euonymeia/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 12:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Calvin999 and I am reviewing this article.

Review

• Some links need dabbing
• , and current residential → which is currently a residential
• Neolithic, and → Remove comma
• earliest, and best → Remove comma
• Citations shouldn't really be in the lead. Is this info not included in any subsequent sections?
• Etymology section only has one citation, despite numerous facts, statements and sentences.
• Not sure why you've decided to make the final two sentences split from the first paragraph and stray? Just make this section one paragraph.
• Ceramics, and tools → Remove comma (Not sure why you include odd usage of commas!)
• Lots of sentences in most sections don't included citations at the end of each sentence or there are multiple successive sentences which don't have them, so it makes it hard to see if what you've written is verifiable.
• For example, the final paragraph of the Medieval section is completely uncited.
• The 1814 map image is really, really big. It's interfering with the section below. I suggest placing a clear, {{-}}, at the end of the 19th and 20th centuries sub-section.
• It's also worrying that the whole of the Geography is not cited, either.
• And the Civic Life section.
• References, make it {{reflist|30em}}
• Again with references, these need work. Lots are missing dates and access dates. And work parameters. Some are in a different language, so a language= parameter is needed. Some URLs are showing too, which means that a title= parameter hasn't been used either.

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Outcome

The reason why I'm failing this article is mainly due to grammar and phrasing issues, major concerns of sourcing and verifiability, and the bad condition of the references. Entire sections should not be without citations. I suggest addressing these points above and getting someone to copyedit it for you.  — Calvin999 12:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.