Talk:Theatre of Pompey/GA1

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


 * Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments
There is a lot of information in the article, but several sections/subsections lack in-line citations; so this article is non-compliant in respect of WP:Verify and possibly WP:OR.

I'm not going to fail the article at this point, as it is capable of being improved. However, the article is likely to be placed On Hold, rather than receive a Pass. Pyrotec (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I will now review the article section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. Pyrotec (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * History -
 * Reference 2 is broken, it gives an 404 error message; the web address needs updating.
 * 3rd paragraph unreferenced
 * 4th paragraph unreferenced


 * Architecture -
 * Entirely unreferenced


 * Complex -
 * Entirely unreferenced


 * Temples -
 * Mostly unreferenced, only Temple A has a footnote.


 * Porticus Pompei -
 * Entirely unreferenced


 * Curia, assassination of Caesar -
 * Generally well referenced, however:
 * Reference 9 is a book and the page number of the in-line citations needs to be provided.
 * The final three paragraphs are unreferenced.


 * The site today -
 * The first paragraph is unreferenced and it has a citation needed flag.
 * 3rd paragraph unreferenced
 * 4th paragraph unreferenced
 * 6th paragraph unreferenced


 * Archaeology -
 * Entirely unreferenced


 * Existing Roman theatres in the same style -
 * 1st paragraph unreferenced


 * WP:Lead -
 * A reasonable lead.

I'm putting the WP:GAN On Hold at this point. Pyrotec (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The article's inline citations can easily be expanded. I will get to work on that.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Real life got in the way ......I understand if you want to move on. I should have time in the next few days though.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Overall summary
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:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

I'm closing this nomination as little, if any, work has been carried out in correcting the non-compliances highlighted above. The article can of course be resubmitted for WP:GAN, but I would suggest that the referencing is improved before doing so. Pyrotec (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)