Talk:Bohemond IV of Antioch/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 01:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to give this article a review for possible WP:GA status. Shearonink (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
It's probably just me but I am having a hard time getting through the names and keeping them all straight - I think I just need to read the article a few more times before I give a Yes to this parameter. Shearonink (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
The lead is too detailed, it should give a summary or an overview. Shearonink (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This issue has been corrected sufficiently. Shearonink (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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:
References all look good to go. Shearonink (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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:
Wow, the references are all from prominent, recently-published sources. Good job. Shearonink (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:
Good to go. Shearonink (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Copyvio tool shows this article as being clean as a whistle. Shearonink (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Now passes this parameter. Shearonink (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
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:
No edit wars, article seems very stable. Shearonink (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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:
All the permissions are valid. Shearonink (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
~~The main issue at this point is the length of the lead and its detailed information.~~ Everything else looks pretty good - I'm going to do some more proofreading-readthroughs to see if there's anything I've possibly missed. Shearonink (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lead has now been sufficiently edited to pass the GA-MOS issues. Shearonink (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, it's a GA! Shearonink (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, for your comprehensive review and supporting approach. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 05:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]