Talk:Si Prat/GA1

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 19:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria All of my comments are open to discussion. Once complete, I will claim this review for points in the 2018 WikiCup. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review. Since it seems Kingoflettuce is busy at the moment, I'll try and see if I can address the issues (responses below). --Paul_012 (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * These are my copy edits. Please review for accuracy and revert/revise if needed.
 * I've modified the edit in the death section, since the poem doesn't explicitly mention beheading. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "masterpiece of punning and word play". - This quote should be attributed inline.
 * I've provided attribution to Thomas J. Hudak, who presumably wrote the preface to his translated volume, where the quote is sourced from. I don't have full access to the book, however, so cannot be 100% sure. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "it has also been argued" - who is arguing? Is one position more widely accepted than another?
 * Added attribution. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Some scholars have suggested" I suggest adding "such as [specific scholar]" to avoid sounding weaselly. Same for the other scholars mentioned later in this sentence.
 * Done. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * no concern
 * 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 concern
 * 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:
 * No concern
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * The first sentence of the last paragraph under Historicity makes a strong claim for consensus doesn't have a citation. I assume it came from the same source as the following sentence?
 * Yes. I've added an additional end-of-sentence citation. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * AGF for non-web / non-English sources. No concern
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * no concern
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * no concern
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * no concern
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * A few concerns need to be addressed before I can pass this. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) ***Thanks - happy to promote this article. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)