Talk:Alphabet/GA3

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

Reviewer: Benji man (talk · contribs) 19:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

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

(Criteria marked are unassessed)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
 * There are quite a few fragmentary sentences (incomplete sentences without a subject and a verb).
 * The order of sections seems random.
 * b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a. (reference section):
 * Claims are appropriately sourced.
 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * In the long term, it would be good to use more expert sources like academic publications.
 * c. (OR):
 * d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Checked for copyvio, none detected.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a. (major aspects):
 * b. (focused):
 * The lead is quite long.
 * The History section goes into a lot of detail for something that has an elaborate stand-alone page. I'd suggest cutting it down a lot to a summary of History of the alphabet.
 * Most importantly, it's unclear whether this article is about alphabets in the strict sense or writing systems more generally. I think it would be good to focus on just alphabets, maybe with a short section discussing the differences from abjads, abugidas, syllabaries, etc.
 * 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 non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * I think the article needs some substantial work before making GA status. There are a lot of relevant articles that it refers to, so it can be edited down to a more concise and more focused overview of alphabets proper. The prose also has to be brought in line throughout the article. I'm pretty interested in the subject and it's an important article, so if nobody minds, I'll probably start making some edits of my own over the coming time (subject to discussion, of course!). Hopefully we'll be able to get this to Good Article soon!
 * 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 non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * I think the article needs some substantial work before making GA status. There are a lot of relevant articles that it refers to, so it can be edited down to a more concise and more focused overview of alphabets proper. The prose also has to be brought in line throughout the article. I'm pretty interested in the subject and it's an important article, so if nobody minds, I'll probably start making some edits of my own over the coming time (subject to discussion, of course!). Hopefully we'll be able to get this to Good Article soon!
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * I think the article needs some substantial work before making GA status. There are a lot of relevant articles that it refers to, so it can be edited down to a more concise and more focused overview of alphabets proper. The prose also has to be brought in line throughout the article. I'm pretty interested in the subject and it's an important article, so if nobody minds, I'll probably start making some edits of my own over the coming time (subject to discussion, of course!). Hopefully we'll be able to get this to Good Article soon!
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * I think the article needs some substantial work before making GA status. There are a lot of relevant articles that it refers to, so it can be edited down to a more concise and more focused overview of alphabets proper. The prose also has to be brought in line throughout the article. I'm pretty interested in the subject and it's an important article, so if nobody minds, I'll probably start making some edits of my own over the coming time (subject to discussion, of course!). Hopefully we'll be able to get this to Good Article soon!
 * I think the article needs some substantial work before making GA status. There are a lot of relevant articles that it refers to, so it can be edited down to a more concise and more focused overview of alphabets proper. The prose also has to be brought in line throughout the article. I'm pretty interested in the subject and it's an important article, so if nobody minds, I'll probably start making some edits of my own over the coming time (subject to discussion, of course!). Hopefully we'll be able to get this to Good Article soon!