Talk:Si Prat/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 19:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

All of my comments are open to discussion. Once complete, I will claim this review for points in the 2018 WikiCup. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Since it seems Kingoflettuce is busy at the moment, I'll try and see if I can address the issues (responses below). --Paul_012 (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
These are my copy edits. Please review for accuracy and revert/revise if needed.
I've modified the edit in the death section, since the poem doesn't explicitly mention beheading. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"masterpiece of punning and word play". - This quote should be attributed inline.
I've provided attribution to Thomas J. Hudak, who presumably wrote the preface to his translated volume, where the quote is sourced from. I don't have full access to the book, however, so cannot be 100% sure. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"it has also been argued" - who is arguing? Is one position more widely accepted than another?
Added attribution. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Some scholars have suggested" I suggest adding "such as [specific scholar]" to avoid sounding weaselly. Same for the other scholars mentioned later in this sentence.
Done. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
no concern
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
no concern

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
No concern

C. It contains no original research:
The first sentence of the last paragraph under Historicity makes a strong claim for consensus doesn't have a citation. I assume it came from the same source as the following sentence?
Yes. I've added an additional end-of-sentence citation. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
AGF for non-web / non-English sources. No concern
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
no concern

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
no concern
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
no concern
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
no concern
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
no concern

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
no concern
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
A few concerns need to be addressed before I can pass this. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- - - Thanks @Paul 012: - happy to promote this article. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]