Talk:Cistercian numerals/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How .. interesting. Will review shortly. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Lead:
- "After the Cistercians abandoned the system in favor of the Arabic numerals, marginal use continued until the early 20th century, with Freemasons, occultists and Nazis all briefly flirting with it." is cited in the lead, but it isn't present in the article body. MOS:LEAD is part of the GA criteria.
History:
- link for "ligatures"?
- The sentence starting "The numbers were not used for arithmetic or accounting..." in the second paragraph is pretty long and convoluted - is there a way to break this up?
Not required, but you do "13th century" in the lead but "thirteenth to fifteenth centuries" in the body - consistency wouldn't be a bad thing here ... but again, not required.
I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows just one concern which is to a page that frankly looks like gibberish: https://newpeculiarworld.com.ng/crimestoppers-kelowna-qvz/cistercian-number-generator-6fb1bb.

I did do some copyediting, please make sure I didn't change any sourced text beyond what the sources will support or that I haven't broken anything.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: I think I've addressed your concerns. Re the dates, the system was developed in the 13th c but used from the 13th to the 15th, so that's not inconsistent. ~~Some of our centuries are spelled out, some use digits -- does that matter?~~

The page Earwig found was created after I'd submitted this to GA. It does mention substitution ciphers, which King covers but I didn't think noteworthy. Perhaps it was cribbed from the online Unicode summary or number generator that we have in External Links? — kwami (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant the centuries were inconsistent in using words or digits. It would be nice to settle on one or the other. I’m currently bouncing down the highway with my husband in his semi so it’ll be a bit until I can deal with the paperwork here. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, someone started converting them but didn't finish. I spelled them out. — kwami (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Passed by User:Ealdgyth