Talk:History of Roman and Byzantine domes/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 09:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Beginning first read-through. More soonest.  Tim riley  talk    09:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is plainly of GA quality. A few quibbles before I observe the formalities: Nothing of any great consequence there, but I'll put the review on hold to give you time to deal with the various points. –  Tim riley  talk    10:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There are a fair few duplicate blue-links that should be thinned out: see WP:OVERLINK. They are:
 * Armenian
 * Baiae
 * Baths of Agrippa
 * Church of Saint Simeon Stylites
 * Church of Saints Sergius and Bacchus
 * Church of the Holy Apostles (twice)
 * conches
 * Constantinople
 * Daphni
 * fall of Constantinople
 * Hagia Irene
 * Hagia Sophia (three times)
 * Latin Occupation
 * Myrelaion (twice)
 * Pantheon (twice)
 * Ravenna
 * Roman concrete
 * St Mark's Basilica
 * Western Roman Empire
 * and warm rooms.
 * I notice that you give only metric measurements. In an article like this I'd rather have expected to see conversion templates in use, giving the imperial measurements as well as the metric. The last architectural article I looked at closely was Castell Coch, which shows the template effectively deployed.
 * Parenthetic dashes: the MoS prescribes either spaced en-dashes or unspaced em-dashes; here we have spaced em-dashes.
 * References
 * Refs 2, 65, 69, 73–4 and 132 include the author's initials, though none of the other refs do.
 * Bibliography
 * You are inconsistent about whether or not to include the locations of the publishers of books.
 * Strictly, though I don't make a point of it at GAN level, we are suppposed to use the 13-digit form of ISBNs; there are a few 10-digit ones here.
 * Lavan: "BRILL" should not be in caps.
 * Lucore: The title is in title case according the copy shown on the linked page


 * Thank you for doing this review! I think I fixed everything that you mentioned. I have removed the duplicate blue-links in the body of the article, leaving just the first instances linked (and sometimes an additional link in the lede or in captions, per MOS). I have added the convert template to the span measurements (except for those rare times that "Roman feet" or "Byzantine feet" are used, because the template is not able to convert those, as far as I can tell). I have removed the spaces from the parenthetic em-dashes. I have removed the initials from the citation for E. B. Smith. I have added as many publisher locations as I could find. I have swapped out the 10-digit ISBNs for 13-digit ISBNs. I have fixed the capitalization of Brill and the Lucore title. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Review
Excellent. If you decide to take the article on to FAC, I'd advise looking again at the Lead. It complies with WP:LEAD, I'd say, but is nonetheless on the short side for an article of 7,500 words. A few outstanding examples illustrating domes from the various centuries would give a broader overview, which is what is wanted. That apart, the article seems to me to be well worth considering for FA. Meanwhile:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A fine article, and a pleasure to review.  Tim riley  talk    06:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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: