Talk:Against Neaera/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 13:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Lead:
 * "was a prosecution speech made by Apollodoros of Acharnae against" contradicts "possibly written by Apollodoros himself" which one is correct?
 * Both are correct. Apollodoros definitely made the speech (i.e. delivered it in court); it is uncertain if he wrote it himself.  Changed "made" to "delivered" which hopefully eliminates any potential ambiguity.  Are you happy with this, or do you feel that further clarification is needed?
 * That works fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Background:
 * "Theomnestos says that he is bringing the case against Neaera in order to exact revenge against Stephanos for his previous attacks" ... uh, who is Stephanos?
 * Good spot. I've read so much about this speech that I don't even notice basic details like this need explaining. ✅
 * Totally understand about being so deep into the subject that you miss the trees....
 * "The case against Neaera was brought by Theomnestos, the brother-in-law and son-in-law of Apollodoros" contradicts "Following this suit, Stephanos brought the case against Neaera from which this speech comes" - which one is correct? And then later it's "raises the question of why Apollodoros and Theomnestos waited for such a long time to bring the matter of Neaera to court". Im totally lost as to who brought the case - three different people seem to be behind the case being brought.
 * I have somehow managed to get the names totally mixed up in this paragraph. Hopefully they are now properly straightened out.
 * Works now.
 * "Carey suggests in fact it was an attempt to test public opinion to a challenge against the use of surplus money on the Theoric fund when it could instead have been used for defence against the threat of Philip of Macedon." is opinion and needs a specific citation to source the information.
 * Cited Kapparis for this, who comments on Carey's opinion. ✅
 * Image is fine. I googled three phrases from the article and they only appeared in Wikipedia and various mirrors of Wikipedia. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations.
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * LOoks good with the changes, I'll be passing this now. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I put it in the "European history" subsection on the GA article page - if you disagree feel free to move it elsewhere... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's another one of my GA's which hits the intersection between "european history" and "language and literature". I don't have strong opinions either way, frankly.  There are plenty of classicists who would take issue with the notion that anything that Apollodoros wrote might qualify as literature, though!  Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Carey suggests in fact it was an attempt to test public opinion to a challenge against the use of surplus money on the Theoric fund when it could instead have been used for defence against the threat of Philip of Macedon." is opinion and needs a specific citation to source the information.
 * Cited Kapparis for this, who comments on Carey's opinion. ✅
 * Image is fine. I googled three phrases from the article and they only appeared in Wikipedia and various mirrors of Wikipedia. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations.
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * LOoks good with the changes, I'll be passing this now. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I put it in the "European history" subsection on the GA article page - if you disagree feel free to move it elsewhere... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's another one of my GA's which hits the intersection between "european history" and "language and literature". I don't have strong opinions either way, frankly.  There are plenty of classicists who would take issue with the notion that anything that Apollodoros wrote might qualify as literature, though!  Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)