Talk:Tuisto/GA1

GA Review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * More references would help alleviate concerns here. "However, there is no reason to suspect that the story of Tuisto is not a genuinely Germanic tradition: the names of the figures connected to the myth are Germanic in form and bound by alliteration, a common Germanic poetic device." That sentence needs at least two references by itself.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The Herodotus/Scythian interaction seems a bit WP:COATRACKy to me. Why is it needed here?
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Image could be a bit more specific. Perhaps it could be cropped to focus on Germania?
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Add a reference to any assertion, even if it's just a repeat, and clarify the purpose of the Herodotus side note. ON HOLD for up to a week pending these improvements. Not a bad article on an obscure topic, just not quite there yet. Jclemens (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Add a reference to any assertion, even if it's just a repeat, and clarify the purpose of the Herodotus side note. ON HOLD for up to a week pending these improvements. Not a bad article on an obscure topic, just not quite there yet. Jclemens (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reviewing the article. I've removed the sentences in question and replaced it with (in my opinion) something more straight forward that is basically communicating the same thing. I'll see what I can do about the Germania illustration - we're going to need it for a number of articles where finding an appropriate depiction may be near impossible. As a side note, just so you know, this article is the result of a collaborative effort between another editor and I, who has been inactive for some time now. bloodofox: (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good as modified, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! bloodofox: (talk) 07:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)