Talk:YBC 7289/GA1

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

Reviewer: John M Wolfson (talk · contribs) I'll be reviewing this in the coming days. 00:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks good so far. My main suggestion at this point would be to expand the lead to include details on its provenance and curation per MOS:LEAD, just a paragraph or so. (Also, you needn't (but can) put citations in the lead per WP:LEADCITE if the citations are already in the body of the article.) Also, please make your citation style consistent (i.e., remove the parenthetical citations in favor of footnotes.) Thanks! -John M Wolfson (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! But I have some questions for clarification about your suggestions:
 * Re the citations in the lead: the two at the end about the provenance are redundant and could possibly be removed. However, the citation on the direct quotation needs to stay, for the attribution requirements of MOS:QUOTE. Do you think it would be preferable to remove the removable ones?
 * Re summarizing "details on its provenance and curation" in the lead: I thought that was already covered by the parts of the lead that state "in the Yale Babylonian Collection" and "It is believed to be the work of a student in southern Mesopotamia from some time in the range from 1800–1600 BC." — what additional information from the provenance section do you think is significant enough that it should be added to the lead?
 * Re consistency of citations: what is inconsistent about a style that uses footnotes to provide full citations for all reference and sometimes (when the authorship is relevant for the main text of the article) also writes the authors' names in the text of the main article? Do you want me to un-link the call-outs to authors in the main article, and/or vary their formatting, to make them look more like article text and less like a different citation style that I am not using (one that avoids footnotes and instead uses parenthetical style for all references)?
 * —David Eppstein (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your concerns.
 * 1) My apologies, I did not notice that the quote reference was not replicated. It doesn't matter too much, but I do think it's preferable to remove the redundant citations in the lead.
 * 2) Looking over it and over the Manual of Style some more, I don't think anything needs to be added to the lead, but I would put the YBC mention in the third sentence, something to the effect of "Located in the Yale Babylonian Collection, it is believed to be the work..."
 * 3) My main suggestion would be to remove the parenthetical dates from the references and incorporate the names into the prose, while keeping the ref numbers. I think this gives a good example. -John M Wolfson (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * All done, I think. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Here are the Good Article Criteria, and how I think the page stacks up:

My verdict is that this article has passed✅ and is now a Good Article. Congratulations!
 * Well written: With the changes now in effect, I do think the prose is of quality and consistent the with relevant parts of the Manual of Style. ✅
 * Verifiable and no OR: Everything needing a citation seems to be cited. ✅
 * Broad in coverage: It adequately discusses the mathematics, age, and provenance of the tablet, and is succinct and to the point. ✅
 * Neutral: There doesn't seem to be any editorializing in this article. ✅
 * Stable: I don't see any vandalism in the past 50 edits. ✅
 * Illustrated and no copyright issues: The main picture is has the appropriate license per Wikipedia policy. The second image has a pending OTRS, which is likewise consistent with Wikimedia policy. Both images are necessary and sufficient to illustrate the article, IMO. ✅