Talk:Dominic of Evesham/GA1

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

Reviewer: Serial Number 54129 (talk · contribs) 16:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Great article, can see only open thing preventing immediate promotion.
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Made a very light copy edit here, just a couple of obvious things.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * All the journals are peer-reviewed academic journals, and likewise, the books and e-material are published by respected presses and authored by 20th-century experts in the field./Writings, para 3 needs an inline citation per MOS:SUBSTANTIATE.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Earwig is clear; no Google hits.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Self-published, CC-BY-SA-3.0
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Although WP:ALTTEXT is not mandatory, it seems increasingly recommended.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Self-published, CC-BY-SA-3.0
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Although WP:ALTTEXT is not mandatory, it seems increasingly recommended.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

A couple of prose suggestions, for the future perhaps, and certainly nothing to hold up promotion over. (Emphasis on "Suggestions"!)  SN54129  17:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Duplication of "works" at end of the lead.
 * Ditto "probably born...probably raised..."
 * "he became prior of Evesham" -- perhaps "was elected the Abbey's prior" to save duplicating Evesham.
 * "He had been replaced as prior by 1150" is pretty short; how about combining it with the preceding sentence; as in: "He may have witnessed a further charter of Foliot's in 1133, but is known to have been replaced as prior by 1150".
 * Should Latin titles use ---
 * I generally don't bother - we use too many templates as it is, honestly. I don't see what that template gains the reader. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Might be worth linking Relics; it's one of those words that everyone thinks they know but is a bit more specific than they realise.
 * "a 13th-century manuscript, which is an early collection of some of the works" -- "a 13th-century collection of several of his writings". Tighter and avoids duplicating "works" from the previous sentence.
 * "that he had altered both by omitting information and adding information" -- perhaps "that he had altered each by both omitting and adding information"?
 * "is not like Dominic's" -- is dissimilar to?
 * "according to D. C. Cox" -- now just Cox, introduced in the previous para.
 * "His most influential work" -- Dominic's, as the last chap mentioned was Cox.
 * Maybe link Chained Library.
 * SN54129 17:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I got all of the above but the template. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Passing, obvs 🙂  SN54129  07:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)