Talk:Calafia/GA1

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

Reviewer: Noleander (talk · contribs) 17:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll do this. Looks interesting. --Noleander (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments
--Noleander (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "penned" - may not be understandable to non-native speakers of English. A bit colloquial/artsy.
 * How major of a character? - "In the book The Adventures of Esplandián, after many pages of battles and adventures, the story of Calafia is introduced as a curiosity, an interlude in the narrative." Can you clarify if she is a major character in the book from that point onwards?  or does she appear for the interlude, then disappear?
 * quote marks: "There can be no question but that a learned man like Ordóñez de Montalvo was familiar with the Chanson de Roland ...This derivation of the word "California"  - I think MOS:QUOTE suggests single quote 'aaa' when used within an outside double quote "zzz".
 * Title? - "Dr. William E. Hoskins .." - I'm a bit fuzzy on thus, but I think WP:CREDENTIAL says that "Dr." is not supposed to appear.
 * Wording - " under the Christian banner". The word "banner" is a bit confusing here.  Not sure if it is meant in a literal or figurative sense.  Can you reword it with plainer terms?
 * That's all for now. ... I'm having a hard time finding any suggestions for improvement :-)


 * Regarding whether Calafia is a major character: No, she is not. None of our best book sources say she is that, and they do not say she is a recurring character in the series. She is not called a minor character, either. She gets a lot of attention in the story but then she is put away forever by the author.
 * I fixed the "penned" bit and I fixed the quote marks.
 * The first instance of "Dr" is allowed by MOS but I took it out anyway.
 * The "Christian banner" was figurative in my intent, and possibly true in the story (I haven't checked), but the main impulse is that the new California was to be Christian upon Calafia's return. I put that wording into the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's all I can find, so I'm passing it. --Noleander (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yay! Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Tick list
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

--Noleander (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: