Talk:Citadel of Erbil/GA1

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

Reviewer:  SilkTork  *YES! 13:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look and leave some initial comments over the next few days.  SilkTork  *YES! 13:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 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:


 * Stable.  SilkTork  *YES! 13:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Images pass GA criteria. When looking at the images I noticed that there are several different names for the castle, including - Citadel of Erbil and Hawler Castle. Might be useful to include those alternative names in the lead.  SilkTork  *YES! 13:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * References organised in appropriate sections at end of article. I moved the online cites into direct links rather than shortened, as that saves a reader time, and removes redundancy and repetition - saving space.  SilkTork  *YES! 14:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Cites checked are reliable, and the article's contents are supported by the sources. No evidence of original research.  SilkTork  *YES! 14:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Prose is clear and conveys a lot of information. Sometimes the information is a little too compressed, which makes reading quite abrupt, and the overflow of information means it can be difficult to absorb and understand - "During the Sassanid period, Arbil was the seat of a governor. In 340 AD, Christians in Arbil were persecuted and in 358, the governor became a martyr when he converted to Christianity.[7] A Nestorian school was founded in Arbil by the School of Nisibis in c. 521.[8] During this period, Arbil was also the site of a Zoroastrian fire temple." Some time spent explaining the context and details would be very rewarding for the general reader. However, as it stands the prose is clear enough to pass GA criteria.  SilkTork  *YES! 14:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * MoS. I have expanded lead slightly - the lead could be tidied and could do with more development per WP:Lead, however it meets GA criteria. There are a number of specialist terms used in the article - these could be juxtaposed with a simple explanation (as in "The Citadel of Arbil is a tell or occupied mound") or linked to the technical term by using a common term (as in "as pottery fragments possibly dating to that period have been found") - the amount of such technical terms is not enough to fail this article, but should be looked into as part of ongoing development.  SilkTork  *YES! 15:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Article appears neutral.  SilkTork  *YES! 15:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Coverage. There is some overlap between this article and the parent article of Arbil, and the relationship between the two articles could be tidied up a bit to ensure both are saying the same thing, that there is no conflict, and that material important to this article is placed here, and material important to Arbil is placed there. Some duplication of material is expected- people reading Arbil would expect an overview of the Citadel to be in that article, and would come to this article only if they wanted more detailed information. I have copied over the lead. Coverage I feel is very good. There is plenty of detail here, and there is no area which gets too much information. Expansion of detail and information would be part of the ongoing development of the article, though meets GA criteria.  SilkTork  *YES! 15:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Pass
This is a readable and informative article. There is a lot of information presented here, and it has been appropriately and neatly organised with good supporting references. There are areas for development noted above, though the article meets the GA criteria and so will be listed. Well done.  SilkTork  *YES! 15:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)