Talk:Chlemoutsi/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 21:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Will review over the weekend.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment I copyedited per my copyediting disclaimer, down to Keep. These are my edits. Concerning: "Andravida, some 13 kilometres (8.1 mi) away, and the Principality's largest port and town, Glarentza (c. 5 kilometres (3.1 mi)).": avoid "))". Also: "some" and "c." suggest it's approximate, but "8.1" and "3.1" suggest it's not. - Dank (push to talk) 14:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Finished copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 21:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * When you're done here, I think it's good to go for an A-class nomination. - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Lead and infobox
 * No coordinates?
 * Add convert template for 226 m


 * History
 * "13 km (about 8 mi) away, and the Principality's largest port and town, Glarentza (c. 5 km or 3 mi). " use Template:Convert.
 * A. Bon -who is he??


 * Outer ward
 * Add convert templates for 5 and 10 metres.


 * Keep
 * Why "apparently judged"?

Looks in good shape, just those very minor things and I'll pass it!♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you for your work! I made the required changes. Thanks to Dank for the thumbs up, and over to you dear Dr. Blofeld: other than technical issues and GA requirements, how do you rate it? You have more experience with articles on towns etc, so in your view, is anything lacking, should I add more detail/context/something else? Constantine  ✍  16:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, you know what is available for it, but it certainly covers what is necessary to pass GA which I will do now. You might though add a bit to the lead on the architecture just so it covers the whole article though.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 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: