Talk:Amulet MS 5236/GA1

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


 * 1a - Prose
 * The prose is unclear in a number of places. For instance, "despite the singularity of the foil,"; "The lamella is registered" (what is a lamella?). There are also a number of sentences that are overlong and ill-constructed (e.g. the sentence beginning "The second step....".


 * 1b - Style
 * There are two sections of two paragraphs, and one section of only one paragraph. The lead section is only one paragraph. Longer sections (and a longer lead) are really needed.


 * 2 - Sources & References
 * No issues here - I consider the sources used to be reliable enough for the purpose of a GA though I am sure they would meet with issues at FAC.


 * 3 - Broad & Focused
 * This is a very short article. This would not necessarily be a problem, were there no more to say. But I think more can be added to this article: a little more about the palaeography; the rarity of 6th-century amulets; the likely presence of hexameter. I am sure a detailed reading of the sources would give more suggestions.


 * 4, 5, 6 - Neutrality, stability, illustration
 * No issues here.

On the whole I am unable to pass this nomination & the amount of work is probably such that "on hold" isn't appropriate. So it's a fail. However happy to review this again if you re-nominate it at some stage.

Reviewer: The Land (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)