Talk:Evangelos Zappas/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 21:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Will begin soon. JAG UAR   21:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The second and third paragraphs of the lead should be merged to improve prose flow
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "The legacy of Evangelis Zappas, as well as the legacy of his cousin Konstantinos Zappas, was also used to fund the Olympic Games of 1896" - past tense was
 * Mz7 (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Consider moving some of the lead's citations into the body, per WP:LEADCITE
 * Mz7 (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The first three subsections of the Biography section are very short, can they be merged?
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * " which is named in his honour and that of his cousin Konstantinos Zappas" - is this article using American or British spelling?
 * Mz7 (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge the last two sentences together in the Philanthropy section
 * Mz7 (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No dead refs
 * Dab links OK

Quite solid! On hold for 7 days. JAG UAR   21:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to note, the GA nominator,, is currently blocked indefinitely from editing. Since your notes seem pretty straightforward, I might take a stab at them this weekend. Mz7 (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * One sentence in the "Philanthropy" section reads: In Romania are known the funds provided for the establishment of the Romanian Academy and the Romanian capital Bucharest rebuilding, which was severly damaged by a major fire in 1847. The grammar threw me at first, but it seems to mean that Zappas is known in Romania for providing funds for the establishment of the Romanian Academy and the rebuilding of Bucharest. The text was added by an anonymous user on 23 August 2016 with an edit summary pointing to this Romanian source that I can't read. It appears the user inserted the sentence between the existing citation to the Ruches book, which makes me suspicious that the Ruches book doesn't actually verify the sentence. For that reason, I am inclined to remove the sentence. It's possible that the Romanian source from the edit summary does verify the sentence, but it's best to leave it out until that can be definitively verified. Mz7 (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I must have completely forgot about this! Thank you for getting back to this review in the blocked user's absence. I see that all of the outstanding issues have been addressed, so I see no reason to keep this on holdany longer. I've looked through your edits and this article seems to meet the GA criteria now.  JAG  UAR   18:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)