Talk:Cappadocian calendar/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Attar-Aram syria (talk · contribs) 07:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
The six good article criteria
[edit]I will use the Green color for my comments. For the sake of clarity, please select a color for your replies Louis.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- 1-Well written:
- a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
- Good, aside from few spelling errors: calender, overal.
- Done.
- Good, aside from few spelling errors: calender, overal.
- b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation
- For now, fail. The lede mentions information not mentioned in the main text. I suggest a new section in the main text title: Description (or whatever title the writer prefer), or maybe just expand the Context section, and all the information from the lede should be repeated (and re-worded) in the main text.
There is no need for any citations in the lede. A lede should summarize what is already mentioned and sourced in the main text only.- A valid point and that's what I usually do as well. However, this is a pretty small article about a minor subject. I found it pretty difficult to integrate lede material into the body of the article, as it became repetitive on almost every attempt. Hence I decided to keep it this way. However, if you do really think I should add some more lede material to the body, could you please describe it in detail (i.e. sentences/words.)? Thanks a lot.
- Louis, I understand it can be frustrating, but we need to apply the GA criteria, and this include a lead section that follows the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, which states clearly that you can not have information not appearing in the main text in the lead. Hence, what I think has no weight when it comes to adding content from the lead to the main text if it is mentioned in the lead but not the body. It is okay to repeat, and as long as the statements in the lead are not controversial and likely to be challenged, then they need no citations. I have made edits to the article, and reverted myself, so you can see how it can be done. You can copy-edit or keep what I wrote and expand on it. Tell me when this is done so I can move on with the review.
- @Attar-Aram syria: Thanks. I kept your additions, which were definitely an improvement, and made a few more tweaks to fulfill the GA criterion. Please let me know what you think.
- Looks good. Pass on that
- @Attar-Aram syria: Thanks. I kept your additions, which were definitely an improvement, and made a few more tweaks to fulfill the GA criterion. Please let me know what you think.
- Louis, I understand it can be frustrating, but we need to apply the GA criteria, and this include a lead section that follows the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, which states clearly that you can not have information not appearing in the main text in the lead. Hence, what I think has no weight when it comes to adding content from the lead to the main text if it is mentioned in the lead but not the body. It is okay to repeat, and as long as the statements in the lead are not controversial and likely to be challenged, then they need no citations. I have made edits to the article, and reverted myself, so you can see how it can be done. You can copy-edit or keep what I wrote and expand on it. Tell me when this is done so I can move on with the review.
- A valid point and that's what I usually do as well. However, this is a pretty small article about a minor subject. I found it pretty difficult to integrate lede material into the body of the article, as it became repetitive on almost every attempt. Hence I decided to keep it this way. However, if you do really think I should add some more lede material to the body, could you please describe it in detail (i.e. sentences/words.)? Thanks a lot.
- For now, fail. The lede mentions information not mentioned in the main text. I suggest a new section in the main text title: Description (or whatever title the writer prefer), or maybe just expand the Context section, and all the information from the lede should be repeated (and re-worded) in the main text.
- a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
- 2-Verifiable with no original research:
- a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- The Iranica refrence is a website. An access date and a publish date need to be provided. (The article of Palmyra have cited web sources, so the template there can work here)
- b. all inline 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;[5]
- Satisfying
- c. it contains no original research; and
- Satisfying
- d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
- Satisfying
- a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- 3-Broad in its coverage:
- a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
- Satisfying
- b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- What is Julianization? explain it in a note for readers who do not understand it.
- Done. Please let me know what you think.
- What is Julianization? explain it in a note for readers who do not understand it.
- a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
- 4-Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Satisfying
- 5-Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Satisfying
- 6-Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
- Satisfying
- a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- Satisfying
- b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
- Satisfying
Notes:
- Whos is Sacha Stern, Boyce and Grenet... etc? You need to introduce those scholars, and avoid titles, so instead of writing: historian sacha stern said this and this, write: The historian sacha stern said this and this.
- Done, I think.
- Years and pages of refrences in the main text should be removed. Examples: "according to Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin (1950)", and "Based on Panaino (1990, pp. 658-677, Table 25) and Boyce & Grenet (1991, pp. 279-280)". This does not belong in the main text. I mean the refrences. Remove all years and pages....etc It is enought that they are in the citations.
- Done.
- "even under the strong polity created by the Achaemenids in a region known for its strong Persian religious influences, there was still an element of local priestly autonomy". What do you mean? Is it pre-Persian pre-Zoroastrian elements, or you mean that the Zoroastrians in Cappadocia developed a local way of worship different from the central one in Iran?
- @Attar-Aram syria: The Zoroastrian priests in Cappadocia apparently held some minor priestly autonomy, which in turn enabled them to "tweak" one element of contemporaneous "mainstream" Zoroastrian rite (i.e. the substitution of Apąm with Apąm Napāt). According to Boyce and Grenet, this minor change in rite is reflected in the eighth month name – apparently an unique trait of the Cappadocian calendar.
- I understand it now, but in the article it is confusing: even under the strong polity created by the Achaemenids in a region known for its strong Persian religious influences, there was "still an element of local priestly autonomy".
Its like you are saying that even in an area with a strong Persian presence, local autonomy existed, as if you are implying that the Cappadocias were implementing practices they retained from before the coming of the Persians. It needs to be clear that you are talking about a local Persian priestly autonomy.- You're right; it does look kinda confusing. Should be better now. Please let me know what you think.
- I understand it now, but in the article it is confusing: even under the strong polity created by the Achaemenids in a region known for its strong Persian religious influences, there was "still an element of local priestly autonomy".
- The months list need to be refrenced. Restore: "Based on Panaino (1990, pp. 658-677, Table 25) and Boyce & Grenet (1991, pp. 279-280):[15] but removes the pages, years and tables. Introduce the scholars, and keep the citations templates.
- Done.
Thats it. Once my final remarks are answered, I will pass the article.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Attar-Aram syria: Just tweaked the article based on your final two points. By the way, I would like to get rid of at least one of those "According to Boyce and Grenet / Boyce and Grenet add (...)" passages within the "Names of the months" section. Its getting repetitive IMO. Do you perhaps have any suggestions on how to reword at least one of them? - LouisAragon (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- I edited it. All my points were answered. Pass GA.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks! - LouisAragon (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- I edited it. All my points were answered. Pass GA.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)