Talk:Anactoria/GA1

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

Nominator: 10:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 13:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

This looks an interesting article and a candidate to add to Women in Green. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments

 * The article is of significant length, with 1,208 words of readable prose.
 * The lead s reasonable at 254 words.
 * 94.8% of authorship is by UndercoverClassicist with 26 other contributors.
 * It is currently assessed as a Stub class article (although clearly more than that).
 * Consider rewording "a major Greek city of Ionia" and "is one of few examples of a woman" for clarity.
 * I'm not sure I see the lack of clarity in a major Greek city of Ionia: it was a major city, and a Greek city, in Ionia, which had cities that were neither of those things. Did you have a particular phrasing in mind? Similarly, I'm not sure I see what's obscure about but happy to take a steer if you've got one.  UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you think it is clear, I am content. simongraham (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Assessment
The six good article criteria:
 * 1) It is reasonable well written.
 * the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
 * Language used generally seems appropriate.
 * I can see no major spelling or grammar issues.
 * it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
 * Consider adding an infobox.
 * Considered: I am usually a fan of them. However, I can't find one that works in this scenario: literary character doesn't work well for a character dispersed between many authors' works, while I'm reluctant to use infobox person because that would imply a judgement (in the positive) on the very thorny question of whether "Anactoria" is or should be thought of as a flesh-and-blood person. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Maybe if future research proves one or the other, that is the time for the infobox. simongraham (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The layout is otherwise consistent with the relevant Manuals of Style.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
 * A reference section is included, with sources listed.
 * all inline citations are from reliable sources;
 * The mention in Wharton 1908 seems to be pages 35 and 36.
 * Amended. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Spot-checks confirm Koniaris 1967 and Parker 1993.
 * WP:AGF for the offline sources.
 * it contains no original research;
 * All facts seem referenced.
 * it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;
 * Earwig gives a 4.8% chance of copyright violation, which means it is very unlikely.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage
 * it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
 * Key facts are covered.
 * it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * The article is compliant.
 * 1) It has a neutral point of view.
 * it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
 * The text seems clear and neutral, including a range of views.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * There is no evidence of edit wars.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
 * The images are marked as public domain.
 * images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 * Images are relevant. Are there any of her birthplace?
 * No really good ones that give an idea of how it would have looked when/if she lived there, unfortunately. On my screen (counting the poem as an image, as I think we should), we're slightly over one image per screen, and I think adding more would risk making it over-illustrated. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for considering this. simongraham (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Excellent work. This looks very close to GA already. Please take a look at more comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As requested. I'm afraid I'm not sure quite what you're driving at with the rephrase requests, but I've handled the others. Please do point it out to me if I'm just being dense! UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That all looks very reasonable. I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article. simongraham (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Pass