Talk:History of the Roman Constitution/GA1

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

Has anyone had the chance to review this page yet? RomanHistorian (talk) 10:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have at least the beginnings of a review up soon. It's getting a bit late in my part of the world, so I may not get a completely prose review done until tomorrow. Dana boomer (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * There is a lot of extra bolding in the article. MOS discourages bolding anything except for the title of the article as it is introduced in the first sentence of the article, and the amount of bolding that is present distracts the reader from the prose.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Is there a reason that most of the items in the references section aren't connected to in-line cites? If they're used as references, they should be cited in-line (like you've done with the Abbott book), if not, they can be removed or moved to the further reading section.
 * You need to include the Goldsworthy ref full information in the References section, and it needs to be formatted like the other short cites (just author, page).
 * A couple of spots need references:
 * Under the Republic section, end of fourth paragraph
 * Under the Empire section, end of first paragraph (especially since you say probably...you need to back this up by saying who is proposing this theory)
 * Same section, the tail ends of the second through fifth paragraphs, plus all of the sixth paragraph.
 * Decline and fall section, all of second paragraph
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

The referencing in this article needs some work, so I am putting this article on hold to allow you time to address my concerns. As I said earlier, I am not going to have a chance to fully review the prose tonight, but I will start that as soon as I see the referencing issues being addressed. If you have any questions, drop me a note here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 02:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Since there has been no reply and no work done on the article (despite notifications on the main and nominating editors' talk pages), I am failing this nomination. Please feel free to renominate the article for GA status after addressing the above concerns. Dana boomer (talk) 12:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I wanted to work on this article but haven't got the time these days.... Nergaal (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. The comments will always be there later for you or anyone else who wants to adopt the article. Dana boomer (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have made the corrections and renominated this article. RomanHistorian (talk) 04:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)