Talk:Gallic Wars/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 03:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opening statement

Hello, and come what may from this review, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. During the review, I may make copyedits, which I will limit to spelling correction and minor changes to punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. The Nominator(s) should understand that I am a grammar pedant, and I will nitpick in the interest of prose quality. For responding to my comments, please use Done, Fixed, Added, Not done, Doing..., or Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 03:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is... massive, and this review will take a while. Expect me to read a couple sections at a time and to take frequent breaks. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 03:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vami IV, Thank you for this grand undertaking :) I totally understand it will take a while. Took me a while to write the thing! Been at it since last year. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vami IV, Will you still be able to tackle this? If not, totally fine, just lemme know so I can find another reviewer :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am; I'm just waiting on my comments in #Refrencing to be addressed. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 22:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vami IV, Oooh, sorry, didn't realize you wanted each section to be addressed in turn, I haven't done it that way before CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't, and I should have explained that. I just take referencing seriously, and like to gauge receptiveness to input with first sections. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 23:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: Captain, I must offer you my apologies, but I cannot continue this review. I have decided to temporarily pull back from Wikipedia for some soul-searching. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 12:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

I'll start here. The referencing is reliable, but also a mess.

There are books and journal essays with long-form citations in #Notes that should be moved into #References.
The short-form in-line citations are not uniformly SFN or uniformly not SFN. Uniform SFN format is desirable unto requirement for an article this size.
There are broken SFNs in #Notes.
There are long-form citations under #References that do not have in-line citations leading to them.
There are missing ISBNs.

GA progress

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.