Talk:Tetricus I/GA1
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Keith-264 in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 20:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria You can start addressing any points I raise immediately, but I will be offline until Monday. If you disagree with any of my comments, don't hesitate to argue them - I'm willing to be persuaded. Once complete, I'll be using this review to score points in the 2018 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Lead
- "the murder of Victorinus" - suggest "the murder of Emperor Victorinus" for clarity.
Done
- "by the influence of Victoria, the mother of Victorinus" - I think "by the influence of Victorinus' mother, Victoria." reads more smoothly
- Done
- "the murder of Victorinus" - suggest "the murder of Emperor Victorinus" for clarity.
- History
- "before Emperor Victorinus was murdered" - I think "when Emperor" sounds better.
- Done
- "After Victorinus was murdered, his mother, Victoria" - "Victroninus' mother, Victoria," avoids repeating "Victorinus was murdered"
- Done
- "elevated to co-emperor during the last days of Tetricus I's reign, but this is disputed" - by whom and why?
- Source didn't give me that unfortunately. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- "one reaching so far into Gallic territory as to reach the Loire." - repetition of "reach". Maybe change the first instance to "stretching"?
- Done
- "There are two accounts of the occurences there." - the second one is attributed to "modern scholars", but the first is left vague. Is that the contemporary account?
- Done
- "modern scholars believe this to be imperial propaganda" from which empire?
- Done
- "coins of Tetricus I and II, to " - comma not needed
- Done
- "before Emperor Victorinus was murdered" - I think "when Emperor" sounds better.
- Numanistics
- Most of these sentences contain the phrase "his bust on the obverse". I think it would be more engaging to remove this repetition with something like, "seven featured his bust on the obverse, with the reverse showing a __, __, ... or a ___." Same with the coins with his face.
- Done
- " depicted Tetricus I and Tetricus II, his son, together" - "his son" isn't needed. Lineage was established in the previous section.
- Done
- "Jugate busts of both on the obverse" is repeated twice. I suggest combining these sentences.
- Done
- Most of these sentences contain the phrase "his bust on the obverse". I think it would be more engaging to remove this repetition with something like, "seven featured his bust on the obverse, with the reverse showing a __, __, ... or a ___." Same with the coins with his face.
- Lead
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- no concern
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- no concern
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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:
- assuming good faith for the print sources. I re-ordered some to put them in numeric order.
- C. It contains no original research:
- AGF that the "debated" is supported by the offline sources.
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- ear wig returned a 1% hit on a brief latin phrase
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- no concern
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- no concern
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- The "debated" aspects are being presented with equal weight. AGF the offline sources support this weighting.
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- other than recent improvement, there have been few changes in years.
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- no concern
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- no concern
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Short but sweet. Pass pending response to the notes above. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Argento Surfer: Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nice work - easy pass. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Argento Surfer: Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Short but sweet. Pass pending response to the notes above. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
- Did a cheeky little ce, auto ed, checked for dupe wikilinks and changed date to year in the biblio; all edits suggestive, rv as desired. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)