Talk:Seikilos epitaph/GA1

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

Reviewer: P,TO 19104 (talk · contribs) 19:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Article needs to be improved. If I were to tag the article I think I'd tag it in need of verification. This mainly applies to the section: "History of the stele's discovery and exhibition" -- it is a paragraph long and it only has two citations. I think I'd wait until the article is a "C" -- I don't think "Starts" are very good candidates for a G.A.N.

Well written possibly -- are we sure the variation by Armand D'Angour is Public Domain?? Could article maybe could be expanded? Certain sections that talk about the melody, indication, and dedication -- could that be expanded?

Broad in its coverage yes

Neutral: yes

Stable: yes

Illustrated: yes

I recommend this review to be placed on hold.

Problematic review
This review was conducted by a new Wikipedian, one of two done very quickly, this one taking under 20 minutes and clearly not following nor understanding the specific GA criteria or process. The comment about the WikiProject status is one: status is typically irrelevant because it can be out of date (and usually is in most articles). The number of citations in a paragraph is not what we judge by, it's whether the facts are covered in the cited sources, which is certainly possible, but must be checked if at all possible (and if we can't check, we can ask what the source actually says). Other editors have removed the incorrectly placed templates on this page, and the nomination remains open. As it is clear that a new reviewer will be needed, I am changing the status to call for a second opinion by an experienced reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, as someone who is familiar with the Seikilos epitaph, I would love to do this review. (Or perhaps "redo it" is more appropriate) Is there a way to make myself the official reviewer, or should I just add comments on the existing review? - Aza24 (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Aza24, thank you for offering. Please go ahead. The way to proceed is to add a new section below, perhaps called "New reviewer", and proceed as if this were a new review. I expect that you'll find a good deal to comment on; when the reviews were discussed on the GAN talk page, Lee Vilenski commented that the article is quite a bit away from the criteria in my eyes. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, when I quickly skimmed the article I thought the issues were surrounding the small lede section, big paragraphs and uncited information. Whilst some of this can be sorted reasonably easily, there seemed to be quite a few issues with the prose as well. However, I'm completely happy with someone else to take over and do the review here, but those were.my thoughts. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

After looking through this article, I concur with that it is quite far from GA, especially in terms of inline citations and just general information. Koridas, as the nominator, it doesn't seem like you have done any edits to the page, (Based on the page statistics) and in order to address the concerns I will probably bring up, you would need to have most of the sources available. Is this the case? Aza24 (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note to Aza24: this was an out-of-process nomination, which I hadn't realized at the time: nominators who are not significant contributors to articles they wish to nominate are supposed to consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination according to the Good Article nomination instructions. There was no such consultation. Under the circumstances, should Koridas not get back to you by tomorrow, seven days after your initial ping, you should feel free to close this as unsuccessful; the lack of response already, despite many edits elsewhere on Wikipedia in the interim, is not a good omen for responsiveness should you proceed with the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Failed nomination
Due to the nominator being unresponsive and not a significant contributor, this nomination has failed. Aza24 (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)