Talk:Raymond II, Count of Tripoli

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Raymond II, Count of Tripoli/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 09:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review[edit]

  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) IMO the prose is adequate for GA. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) All five criteria are met. Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Densely cited. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) A good mix of reliable and pleasingly recent sources. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) All views are well sourced. Differences are well presented. Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) No Earwig issues - 0%! Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The article covers all important aspects. It gives due weight to different sources and mixes contemporary and modern sources well. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) The article remains focused on its subject. Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    Neutrally written with no apparent POV. Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    Nothing but minor improvements over the last 9 months Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) So far as I can make out, the images are all free use. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) A good mix of different types of image, all appropriately captioned. Pass Pass

Result[edit]

Result Notes
Pass Pass A good, tight little article. Well researched and well written. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

I hope to start this in two or three days. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: Prose.

  • Komnenos/Comnenos. Could you pick one and be consistent.
  • I have made some copy edits. Could you check whether you are happy with all of them. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comprehensive review. Please read my edits here: [1]. Borsoka (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I keep thinking that I ought to find more to comment on, but you seem to have covered things well. Good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your assistance. I highly appreciate your work. Have a nice week. Borsoka (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes[edit]

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Raymond_II,_Count_of_Tripoli&oldid=1208327000"