Talk:History of the Roman Constitution/GA2

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

Hi! Sorry it's taken me a couple of days to get to this, but I am starting the review now and should have the full review up later this afternoon. Dana boomer (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The See also section is really long. Could it be shortened some, by incorporating some of the links in the body of the text (in fact, there are some already there), and removing the ones that are not essential?
 * done Nergaal (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead feels long in comparison to the rest of the article. Is there some information that you could trim?  I'm thinking if you took 3-5 lines out of each of the last two paragraphs, it should feel more balanced.
 * Prose Review:
 * In the "Under the Kingdom" section, you say "divided into two epochs based off of the legends." and again in the next sentence you say "the legends". What are "the legends"?  Please detail what legends you are talking about, either by naming them specifically, or by saying something along the general lines of "based off of the legends recounted by xyz historian or told by abc persons."
 * Same section, you talk about the curia being organized twice in the section, and you have it wikilinked twice. Please combine the parts where you're discussing this (or remove one of them) and remove one of the wikilinks.  Also, "curia" should probably not be capitalized.
 * In the "Under the Empire" section, fourth paragraph, you say "In 68 BC," Now, you had been talking about AD recently, and you continue talking about AD after this.  Is this supposed to be "In 68 AD"?
 * done Nergaal (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * Pass/Fail:

I am still working on the review, but am going to lunch now and so will finish it after. I have finished everything except the prose review, which I will complete this afternoon. The article is looking much improved over the last nomination, and only needs a few minor tweaks before GA status. As a note to myself, I have started the prose review, and gotten up to the "Under the Republic" section. I would ask that you please not begin working on the suggestions above until after I have posted a final comment this afternoon, so as to avoid edit conflicts. Thank you, and let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I have now finished the review. The above issues are the only things that still need to be taken care of.  Overall, this is a very nice article, and it shouldn't take much work to get it up to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I will try to make these corrections sometime in the next couple of days. RomanHistorian (talk) 07:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you still working on this article? It has been on hold for over a week, with nothing done by the nominating editor, and only the most minor changes made by a secondary editor.  I would hate to have to fail this article for the second time, and be assured, I will not be reviewing it a third time, after having been asked to re-review it after the first time I failed it.  It is rude for an editor to ask for a re-review to be completed, and then completely drop off of the map, except for a comment 5 days after the review to say they might get to it at some point. The prose review of this article took time that could have been better spent completing a review of an article with an editor that actually appeared to take an interest in the article. Dana boomer (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Give him some more time. He said he is going to work and from what I've interacted with him he actually does the work when he says. He is pretty busy though and sometimes takes some time before actually doing the work. Nergaal (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize for taking so long. The corrections have now been made. RomanHistorian (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article. Dana boomer (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)