Talk:Acra (fortress)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, I was thinking it might take weeks to get a review. Thanks for taking a look! Article editors should be around this week for any questions or comments. • Astynax talk 06:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- No. There is a GAN backlog elimination drive running at the moment (April 2010); and I was trying to narrow the gap between me and the leader - but that's not likely to happen. Pyrotec (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, I was thinking it might take weeks to get a review. Thanks for taking a look! Article editors should be around this week for any questions or comments. • Astynax talk 06:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Overall summary
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- A balanced consideration of the various possible locations; and the underlying historical context.
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Well illustrated.
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Well illustrated.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
- Overall, this article contains a good balanced discussion of a site that is "known" but has not yet been "found".
- The main body of the article appears to adequately present the information that is currently known.
- The WP:Lead (the initial paragraphs before the Contents) provides a good introduction to this article (which is one of the its requirements); but what is mising is a concise summary of the main findings (its other requirement). The Lead is rather short and it aught to be be expanded to sumarise the main points (here I'm discounting the historical background, but it could be included), i.e. lower city, upper city, underground cistern, etc. Interestingly, the dyk link discusses the "seam" in the stone work, but this is entirely absent from the WP:Lead.
Nevertheless, I'm awarding GA-status to the article as it currently stands, it should not be too onerous to bring the Lead up to standard. Congratulations on producing a balance article. Pyrotec (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you again for the speedy review and useful comments. Work will be done to improve the lead. • Astynax talk 17:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)