Talk:Iazyges/GA1

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

Reviewer: Llammakey (talk · contribs) 01:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅
 * You have Sarmatian linked twice in the lede.
 * Overlink of Black Sea, Pannonia, Quadi and Marcommani.
 * You have Roman triumph linked twice in the Second Dacian War section, and three times overall.
 * Suggest linking Britannia in the After the Dacian Wars section.
 * Suggest placing a comma in 1000 gold pieces to keep it consistent throughout the article.
 * The final sentence of the After the Dacian Wars section, beginning with In 184 AD needs to be rewritten. Something along the lines of "In 184 AD, the 5,500 Iazyges auxiliaries, or else replacements for them, were led by the Roman general Lucius Artorius Castus to put down a revolt in Armorica (Northern Gaul)."
 * In aftermath and legacy, capitalization of pronounced.
 * Just a general comment, but this article reads like a history of Iazyges and the Roman Empire. Just wondering if there is information on the actual tribe itself such as customs, archaeological history, notable settlements and so forth.

Good read, hope this helps. Llammakey (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * on the tribe itself part, not much. Very little is known about their culture, or even religion. While the general assumption is that it is very similar to the sarmatians, I couldn't find a reliable source that said such. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  02:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem with writing about most tribes is that they either didn't write much down, or else it got destroyed, in this case we don't even know which is true. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  02:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I would pass it as a GA, but you might want someone more experienced to have a look over too, just in case I wasn't thorough enough. Llammakey (talk) 12:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've had the Wp:GOCE look over it. If you aren't confident, I would recommend making a post on the GAN's talk page, as it externally looks like you are going to reach a close or promote decision, so people are less likely to get involved. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  12:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I reviewed it. Well done! Llammakey (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Llammakey thanks! Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  15:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Llammakey (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: