Talk:Phryne/GA1

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

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 17:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll review this one. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria This is a well-written and thoroughly researched article that does a good job of handling a topic which must largely be assembled from disparate evidence. In particular, it does an excellent job of showing the reader the great deal of less-than-certain primary source information, and the conflicting versions of Phryne's story, while hedging its own editorial judgements appropriately.
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Unquestionably - impeccably copyedited, clearly written and does a good job of making complex ideas accessible.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 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:
 * I checked a sample of the references, which checked out straightforwardly.
 * 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:
 * I have posted a very nit-picky CN tag - a passage of Hermippus is alluded to, but not directly referenced.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * Referencing to secondary sources is excellent - all factual statements in the editorial voice are sourced to academic secondary literature, and primary sources are used appropriately.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * I ran a sample of excerpts through Google and Google Books, and found no significant areas of similarity outside Wikipedia mirrors.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Excellent on both the ancient history and the post-Classical reception.
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * Concise but judiciously composed.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * See particularly the sections on the charge against Phryne and the conflicting accounts of the trial.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * Substantially stable, with incremental improvements, since at least Feb 2022.
 * 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:
 * All copyright checks out.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * The side-by-side of Kauffmann and Boulanger's portraits, with the caption, is particularly impressive. Other illustrations are well captioned and complement the text significantly.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Sails through the criteria — should certainly hold GA status.
 * Sails through the criteria — should certainly hold GA status.

thanks for your comments. I dug up the Hermippus ref you asked for Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Great stuff. Congratulations on the GA! UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2022 (UTC)