Talk:John Palaiologos (brother of Michael VIII)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 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:
 * Only a couple of minor concerns: the Byzantine terms without their own articles should be explained in the text (even just the word in parentheses). Also, the lead seems a little short to me, but I don't have any specific suggestions as far as expanding it. Nice work, Constantine. Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * Only a couple of minor concerns: the Byzantine terms without their own articles should be explained in the text (even just the word in parentheses). Also, the lead seems a little short to me, but I don't have any specific suggestions as far as expanding it. Nice work, Constantine. Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Only a couple of minor concerns: the Byzantine terms without their own articles should be explained in the text (even just the word in parentheses). Also, the lead seems a little short to me, but I don't have any specific suggestions as far as expanding it. Nice work, Constantine. Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I've linked every Byzantine term I used in the article, or at least I can't find any unlinked ones. For the lead, I'll try to expand it. Thanks for the review! Cheers, Constantine  ✍  14:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think it's fine actually. The one I saw that prompted that comment was sebastokratores in the last section, but I forgot it was linked earlier in the page. Parsecboy (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK then :) Constantine  ✍  15:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)