Talk:Boudica/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tim O'Doherty (talk · contribs) 17:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The article is well written with prose that flows well most of the time (there are some long-winded sentences, but I don't mind this too much). The first sentence and paragraph are very well-written and do exactly their job. A little bit too detailed in the third paragraph, but I am disposed to be lenient and is not a deal-breaker anyway.

No original research is a bit tricky to diagnose, but I don't see any major issues there. Everything is cited that needs to be. I have placed the "focused" element on hold because I believe that the "Appearance" section is unneeded and can be easily merged into "Early literature" as, since it is not a contemporary account, cannot be trusted to be an accurate description and cannot be placed in an otherwise strictly factual part of the article. When this is achieved, the article will pass GA.

The article is neutral and does not vilify or glorify either side.

The recent edit history seems stable enough to pass.

The article is suitably illustrated and captioned.

Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The article has passed, congratulations. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review—and the pass!—just to say I've merged the two small sections as you recommended (by putting the text of one below the text of the other, hope that's all right). I've also trimmed the third paragraph of the lead section, which I agree was overlong. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Cheers, and congrats! Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)