Talk:Jans der Enikel/GA1

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 06:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
 * No GA Quickfail issues. Shearonink (talk) 06:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * For the most part, this is a yes. but there is one sentence that doesn't quite make sense in the "Name and Biography" section: Evidence outwith his own writings... Shearonink (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that has been adjusted, so it's a yes. Shearonink (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * For the most part, this is a Yes as well but "Notes and Biography" should probably be "Notes and biography", should be stated in sentence case, not title case (see MOS:HEADINGS.) Shearonink (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a Yes now. Shearonink (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * No issues for this parameter. Shearonink (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * Statements look well-researched but it will take me a while to work my way completely through all of them. Shearonink (talk) 05:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Checked what I could since many of the refs are in German, but everything checks out. Shearonink (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Are "Geith, Karl-Ernst (1980). "Enikel, Jans". Verfasserlexikon. Vol. II. cols. 565–569." and Boudreau's The Myth of Pope Joan available at all online? Also, please see my most recent Response below. Shearonink (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * Statements are cited with references.Shearonink (talk) 05:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Ran Earwig's Copyvio tool - clean as a whistle, no copyright issues or plagiarism. Shearonink (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Sticks to the somewhat sparsely-known facts about der Enikel while laying out the importance of his written works. Shearonink (talk) 05:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * Yes! Shearonink (talk) 05:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * For the most part, this is a Yes. There is one phrase that seems somewhat POV. In the Weltchronik section, why does the article comment in Wikipedia's voice stating (oddly not the New)? If a source isn't stating that, why does the article? Would like an explanation on that issue. Shearonink (talk) 05:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes now. Shearonink (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * Stable. No edit wars evident. Shearonink (talk) 06:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Guidelines/permissions for the single image are all good. Shearonink (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Very relevant. The wikilink to the Pope Joan article is especially helpful. Shearonink (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Almost everything is a Yes now. I went ahead and adjusted the goose-roaster statement for WP:TONE. Any subscription/paywall reference/s need to be delineated out before I go any further. I will give the article another deep-read or two to see if I have missed any GA issues, but barring any new issues that I might find, I am certain I will be able to assess this article as a WP:GA. Shearonink (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Response
Many thanks for restarting this GA review. I have changed the sentences you mentioned: let me know if that is now clearer. We said "oddly not the new" because normally medieval Christian writers would see Jesus as the central figure of history, but he is simply omitted by Jans. However I don't have a source for that, so have just deleted the observation - it's not so important here. --Doric Loon (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * - I have run into an issue checking the references. At least Mittelbayerische is behind a paywall/the reader needs a subscription/registration to access. I didn't find any others - it does need to be adjusted to include accessibility status (as in Cite web/subscription required etc) before I can complete my review. Shearonink (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * - OK, I think I've fixed that, but you'd better check I have really done what you want. BTW, if you want to see that article, I have it as a JPEG, and I have some of the other literature as PDFs. At present I have no way to send those to you, but I have just sent you an e-mail, and if you reply to it, I can mail you with attachments. Just let me know what, if anything, you need. --Doric Loon (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I just noticed your question further up: I don't think Boudreau is available on-line. The Verfasserlexikon (Geith) certainly isn't. --Doric Loon (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Everything looks fine now. Congrats - it's a GA. Shearonink (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)