Talk:Patroclus (admiral)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 05:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well constructed, will come back shortly. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section 1;
- early life is obscure -> early life was obscure
  - "is obscure" is correct; it is obscure for us today because we know little about him. "Was obscure" makes no sense. Constantine ✍ 13:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The first is completely confusing. What do you mean by "apart from the name of his father"
  - Fixed. Constantine ✍ 13:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- in the service of -> during the rule of
  - I don't see why this should be changed. Being in the service of a monarch implies during his rule. Constantine ✍ 13:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- he must have -> he has
  - No. It is not certain, it is an inference from the fact that he achieved very high offices. Constantine ✍ 13:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- appointed to the prestigious post of -> appointed as the
  - No. The context is important; this was not just any post, but one of the highest and most honourable ones in the Ptolemaic state. Constantine ✍ 13:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Some explanation about "eponymous priest", may be a footnote will work
  - Per summary style, I think it is best left for the linked article. Either a reader understands what "eponymous" means, or he will look it up at the proper article. Constantine ✍ 13:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 271/270 BC -> 271–270 BC/BCE per MOS:DATERANGE
  - No. This is not a date range, but a rendering of the Greek year, which spread across both of our years. So it happened in 271 BC or 270 BC, but we don't know which. Constantine ✍ 13:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- is seen -> was seen
  - "Has been seen" is better. Constantine ✍ 13:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- island of Kaunos; capitalize "I", if possible make a link
  - The island is unidentified, so no link; and why is the capitalization necessary? This is a fragment from a text, not a proper name. Constantine ✍ 13:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Section 2; para 1;
- Mention who is "William Woodthorpe Tarn", for example a British author, Australian historian etc.
  - Good point. Done. Constantine ✍ 13:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- for ten-year terms -> for a term of ten years
  - Hmmm, not sure. I've rephrased it in a different way. Constantine ✍ 13:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Who is "Marcel Launey"?
  - Like Tarn and the others, done. Constantine ✍ 13:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Link "admiral" and "general"
  - Is that not WP:OVERLINKING?Constantine ✍ 13:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Who is "Hans Hauben"?
  - Like Tarn and the others, done. Constantine ✍ 13:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section 2; para 2;
- with the aim -> with an aim
  - No, the latter form is semantically confusing and AFAIK not really used neither in AmEng nor in BritEng. Constantine ✍ 13:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Patroclus is attested -> Patroclus was attested
  - No. He is attested to this day, as far as we know. This is from our perspective. Constantine ✍ 13:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain about "proxenia"
  - Per above regarding summary style, I don't really know how to explain this concept in a brief sentence. If you can offer any suggestion, it would be welcome. Constantine ✍ 13:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- benefactor by both? This sentence is confusing, reword.
  - Fixed. Constantine ✍ 13:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- envoys are also attested -> envoys were also attested
  - Per above on the "attested" part. Constantine ✍ 13:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Link "Callicrates"
  - Done. Constantine ✍ 13:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- it is at that -> change to past tense
  - Done. Constantine ✍ 13:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "the island of Kaudos" ->the "Island of Kaudos"
  - No, per above. Constantine ✍ 13:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Section 2; para 3;

- by internal strife -> by an internal strife
  - No, the suggested change is incorrect. Constantine ✍ 13:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- which he also renamed Arsinoe -> which were also renamed Arsinoe
  - No. The city of Methana was "also renamed Arsinoe". No plural here. Constantine ✍ 13:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Section 2; para 4;
- Hans Hauben; Just Hauben is enough per MOS:LASTNAME from second mention, there is also the same case in the last para
  - True, but there is nothing lost by repeating the full name either.Constantine ✍ 13:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- that suggest that -> suggest that
  - Fixed. Constantine ✍ 13:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Antigonid-controlled, remove "-"
  - No, the suggested change is incorrect. Constantine ✍ 13:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Attica where not -> Attica were not
  - Fixed. Constantine ✍ 13:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Section 2; para 5;
- 265/4 BC -> 265–264 BC/BCE per DATERANGE
  - As above, this is not a date range. Constantine ✍ 13:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- tried once more -> once again tried
  - Done. Constantine ✍ 13:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- that , especially; remove the space between "that" and ","
  - Done. Constantine ✍ 13:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 262/1 BC -> 262–261 BC/BCE
  - As above, this is not a date range. Constantine ✍ 13:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, and thanks for taking the time to review this. I've made the suggested corrections where necessary, or otherwise replied why I declined. Apart from prose issues, how does the article appear in terms of completeness and comprehensibility? Where you able to follow events or should more context on background and related events be added? Cheers, Constantine ✍ 13:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Constantine: The present data in good enough to meet the GA criteria. However, a bit of "context on background and related events" as you said, will definitely help. If you can, please do that. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]