Talk:Iole/GA2

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * It is a little confusion where the first section—by Apollodorus—actually comes from. Without careful reading, the reader must revert back to the lead to find who's tale this is. I would recommend something the likes of: "According to Apollodorus, ... " The lead is a bit dubious, in part because it mentions matters that are not taken up later in the article (such as the family relations of Iole, and additional, non-mentioned sources), and the lead also is written with too short paragraphs (at current length should be one paragraph). Take the content from lead and make at least a paragraph per sentence (if others mention her, how do their tales differ etc).
 * Revision as of 17:39, 11 September 2008 was copyedited with the paragraphs expanded. Also the wording "According to the classical tale by Apollodorus" was added to show from what viewpoint the story is coming from. Also added was "There are different versions of the mythology of Iole from many ancient sources. Apollodorus seems to give us the most complete story followed by slight variations of his from Seneca." Also was added "Apollodorus says one..." to show this version is generally from Appollodorus' view.


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * There is no inline reference for the sources from Ovid and Sophocles.
 * Revision as of 18:02, 11 September 2008 there was inline references added for Seneca. There is also inline references for the sources from Ovid and Sophocles.


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * This article deals explicitly about Iole as a member of a plot. There is not attempted to discern any academic theories surrounding her, nor to what degree she has been depicted later as a figure in other culture or society (of course I don't want to see a list "in popular culture" or anything like that, but surly she must symbolize something). The to-do list is also a bit striking, as it points out several areas the article does not cover. There is obviously more to work on in this article.
 * There were additional edits made by several others between Revision as of 15:58, 11 September 2008 and Current revision as of 22:57, 11 September 2008.


 * 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):
 * External links in captions? The MoS says nothing about this, so I have to let it go, but I would rather discourage it (use a reference instead). The article should aways start with an image in the upper, right corner. Please move one of them there.
 * Revision as of 15:58, 11 September 2008 a different image was added with a different caption.
 * External links in captions? The MoS says nothing about this, so I have to let it go, but I would rather discourage it (use a reference instead). The article should aways start with an image in the upper, right corner. Please move one of them there.
 * Revision as of 15:58, 11 September 2008 a different image was added with a different caption.


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Putting on hold. There are issues that need working on, in particular to covering aspects such as theories, including more sources. There are also some breaches with the MoS that need fixing before this article can be passed, including instances of lack of references. There is a fair amount of work until this passes GA, but the article is out for a very good start—and is well written—so a GA is well within reach with a little effort. Good luck, and don't hesitate to comment or ask for advice if needed. Arsenikk (talk)  14:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A week has now passed since review, and no work has been done. I react to the way this article has gone to renomination for GA without the proper work being done, and after a new review of the article noone bothers to fix up the fairly straightforward fixes (that I cannot do because I am not an expert on the topic). So please be more active the next time you file for GA, so as not to waste other peoples time. There are a lot of other important tasks to attend to on Wikipedia. Arsenikk (talk)  19:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Above is remarked comments with various good faith edit improvements made between the time of the GA # 2 review on 14:17, 11 September 2008 and reply 19:10, 18 September 2008. Other work will be done in the future to perhaps bring this to a GA status someday. --Doug Coldwell talk 18:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)