Talk:Siege of Sparta/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 11:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments
This article looks in promising shape for GAN. A few drafting points: Nothing too difficult to put right there. I'll put the review on hold to give you a week to address the various points.  Tim riley  talk    11:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * the wording has got itself in an impenetrable tangle at "she would commit suicide rather tif the city fell Cleonymus to Pyrrhus". Usually one can see what a garbled phrase is intended to mean, but this one defeats me.
 * The wording was abysmal in that sentence. Hopefully it makes more sense now.
 * this is a matter of style and therefore not something on which the GA criteria permit the reviewer to insist, but I think the nine incidences of "however" in the text weaken the prose ("howevers" almost always do), and in all nine cases their removal would be an improvement.
 * I have removed all of the 'however's.
 * the word "slain" in the lead strikes me as a bit quaint, but again, such a drafting point is no bar to promotion to GA.
 * I replaced slain with killed, which sounds a bit more encyclopaedic.
 * There are four incidences of "In order to" which would be better trimmed to just "To".
 * Done.
 * Sources
 * Odd mix of locations – "United Kingdom: Routledge", but "Oxford: Oxford University Press", followed by "United Kingdom: Oxford University Press". The town or city is usual, rather than the country, but consistency whichever you choose, please.
 * Changed them all to town or city of printing.
 * No ISBN for Wallbank?
 * Added.
 * Duplicate links: Epirus and Macedon within the lead, and war elephants, Megalopolis and Eurypontid King in the main text.
 * I removed the duplicates.

I hope that I have adequately addressed all of your concerns. Kyriakos (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You have. I leave you to consider how to deal with the link in the lead image (and in the popular culture section) to a non-existent page on French WP. Leave the name intact but blitz the link would be my advice.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

I see you have a related article up for GAN, and unless another reviewer gets to it first I hope to look in later in the week. Meanwhile, this article is a worthy promotee to GA. –  Tim riley  talk    16:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)