Talk:Thomas the Slav/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

A rather nice article. Some minor points on the text, none of which would stop me passing at Good Article, but listed below in case you're looking to take it further (ACR etc.). One copyright issue with an image, which is a problem though - see below. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;


 * A few very minor bits:

Early life and career


 * "place his birthplace" - minor, but a repetition of "place". "believe his birthplace to be near..."?
 * "both record two different traditions on his life" - "both record two different accounts of his early life"?
 * "hagiographic" - worth linking

Rebellion:


 * "a fabrication by Michael's propaganda" - "propagandists"? "propaganda machine"?
 * "and not very high rank" - "relatively junior rank"?
 * "In reality, this is yet another piece of hostile propaganda." - "was yet"?
 * "and strengthened the garrisons of several fortresses there to secure their loyalty." - unclear if this was strengthening the loyalty of the themes or the fortresses.
 * "Cibyrrhaeot theme" - capitalisation (all the rest are in capitals - "Theme")
 * "In this way," - unnecessarily, you could just start with "The great rebellion..." if you liked.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Complies with these.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

Complies.

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

Complies.

(c) it contains no original research.

Complies - no OR that I could see.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

Yes.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Yes.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Yes.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Yes.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

All good, the only issue being with Solidus-Michael II Theophilus-sb1640.jpg. The source is given as Source: English Wikipedia, original upload 12 July 2005 by Panairjdde. Panairjdde was later banned as a sock, and I can't find any evidence of where it came from on the English Wikipedia, making the copyright claim a little dodgy and probably wrong on the description file. Can you see where it came from anywhere else?

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Yes.


 * Thanks for taking the time for this review. I've made most of the changes you suggested, bar two cases where I prefer the current wording. I've also replaced the problematic coin image with a new one of the same type of coin. As I intend to take this to ACR and FAR, any other criticism or whatever suggestions for improvement you'd care to make would be welcome. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  22:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)