Talk:Crito/GA1

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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 19:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the ✅ tag to state when something is addressed.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

 * It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
 * It contains copyright infringements -
 * It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include,, or large numbers of , , or similar tags. (See also ). -
 * It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -

Links

 * Lots of red items in the references - could you have a sweep through and clean these up (mostly date issues).Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Lede

 * Could we import a short description? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Lede is very small for an article of this size. Would need a major expansion for a GA. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't we be referencing the IPA? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:SEAOFBLUE in lede. Three links in a row. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The first sentence denotes what the article is. This one says its a dialogue, but presumably this was recorded somewhere. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

General

 * What is the "texts and translations" all about? Seems like a non referenced list with external links. No idea what they are, or what they are for Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems like a lot of "further reading". A lot of these items seem to already be sourced. We need to be careful as per WP:FURTHER. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Why is one of the further reading lists set as an external link, as we have both on this article? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there no images we can expand to this article? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No real paragraph breaks here. A lot of a single sentence then a line break. Needs merging. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Lots seem in present tense. Needs a full scale change to past tense. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ledes are a summary of the main articles prose. You need to explain what the article is about in the background section. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Lots of items should be wikilinked. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Apology, William Guthrie and Legalism are duplicate links Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Some unsourced material such as in Early modern. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Philologist Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff WP:SEAOFBLUE. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "James Stephens simply believes the problem to have no solution." - who is this person, and why do we care? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments

 * Automated note - If you fancy returning the favour, I have outstanding GA nominations that require reviewing at WP:GAN. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these, however it's definately not manditory. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs)
 * I've done a first sweep . Quite a lot of work, specifically bits on the tense, and a really small lede section. I've placed on hold. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate what you mean by the problems with the tenses? I've fixed what I think you meant in the summary section, but I would appreciate further critique. Thank you for all the work you've done. puggo (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * just the above for now. Everything seems to be written in present tense. Wikipedia articles are written in the tense of today's point of view. These things happened a very long time ago. We should be using "was", "had", etc. It's quite common for this article to comment on things as if they are still occuring. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

, Finished with the edits. Please review the improved text at your earliest convenience. puggo (talk) 00:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't think this article can be promoted without significant work. I see you've changed a lot of the tenses in the article, but you missed a lot. Here's what I suggest you work on before renominating:


 * Take the refs out of the lede - I have no idea why you added them in.
 * Fix the paragraphs/proseline. So many (including the lede) have one or two sentences for a paragraph. You wouldn't see that in published works, so we shouldn't see it here.
 * There is still some completely uncited paragraphs. Unless it's sourced somewhere else, every statement should be sourced.
 * I'm certain there can be some images that can be added here. It's such a wide subject, there has to be some things that could be added.
 * There's still some tense issues. See Since his trial in Apology, Socrates has been for example.
 * There needs to be more background. The section starts "the conversation" - what conversation?

I'm going to fail this one for now. I'd suggest requesting a copy-edit at WP:GOCE as well. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)