Talk:Dominic of Evesham/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Serial Number 54129 (talk · contribs) 16:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Great article, can see only open thing preventing immediate promotion.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Made a very light copy edit here, just a couple of obvious things.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
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:

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:
All the journals are peer-reviewed academic journals, and likewise, the books and e-material are published by respected presses and authored by 20th-century experts in the field.
/Writings, para 3 needs an inline citation per MOS:SUBSTANTIATE.

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Earwig is clear; no Google hits.
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):
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:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Self-published, CC-BY-SA-3.0

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Although WP:ALTTEXT is not mandatory, it seems increasingly recommended.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

A couple of prose suggestions, for the future perhaps, and certainly nothing to hold up promotion over. (Emphasis on "Suggestions"!) SN54129 17:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication of "works" at end of the lead.
Ditto "probably born...probably raised..."
"he became prior of Evesham" -- perhaps "was elected the Abbey's prior" to save duplicating Evesham.
"He had been replaced as prior by 1150" is pretty short; how about combining it with the preceding sentence; as in: "He may have witnessed a further charter of Foliot's in 1133, but is known to have been replaced as prior by 1150".
Should Latin titles use {{lang|la-x-medieval|---}}
- I generally don't bother - we use too many templates as it is, honestly. I don't see what that template gains the reader. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Might be worth linking Relics; it's one of those words that everyone thinks they know but is a bit more specific than they realise.
"a 13th-century manuscript, which is an early collection of some of the works" -- "a 13th-century collection of several of his writings". Tighter and avoids duplicating "works" from the previous sentence.
"that he had altered both by omitting information and adding information" -- perhaps "that he had altered each by both omitting and adding information"?
"is not like Dominic's" -- is dissimilar to?
"according to D. C. Cox" -- now just Cox, introduced in the previous para.
"His most influential work" -- Dominic's, as the last chap mentioned was Cox.
Maybe link Chained Library.
SN54129 17:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I got all of the above but the template. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Passing, obvs 🙂 SN54129 07:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]