Talk:Goths/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 21:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Krakkos: Great to see this important article in such a good shape. First comments below, more to follow in the next days.
inhabitants of present-day Swedish island Gotland in Baltic Sea call themselve – I'm not a native speaker, but I would add "the" before both "present-day" and "Baltic Sea".
certainly, of course – these can be removed according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch.
Paulus Orosius wrote – Would be helpful to introduce him (e.g., "the priest Paulus Orosius") and state when he wrote this. This will help a lot; while reading I was wondering if this was a contemporary author or a modern scholar.
and onwards was so considerable that some[who?] – the "who" maintenance tag should be resolved if needed and removed.

began moving south-east from their ancestral lands at the mouth of River Vistula, putting pressure on the Germanic tribes from the north and east. – I can't follow: they were moving south to put pressure on the tribes in the north?
began moving south-east from their ancestral lands at the mouth of River Vistula – Why did they move, do we know the reason?
In the spring of 399, Tribigild, the Gothic leader in charge of troops in Nakoleia – Hi is an ostrogoth, so why is he mentioned in the visigoth section?
He settled the Visigoths in Gaul and Honorius' sister Galla Placidia, who had been seized during Alaric's sack of Rome – what about the sister? Is something missing here?
Why did Alaric sac Rome? Motives would be interesting and important.
After being driven from Gaul, Athaulf retreated into Gaul in early 415 – From Gaul to Gaul??
Under Theodoric I the Visigoths allied with the Romans in inflicting a severe defeat – The article on that battle says the battle was somewhat inconclusive … is "severe defeat" the correct wording? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Krakkos: Just checking if you are still on it? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jens Lallensack. Thank you for a very helpful review. I'm still in on it. I will follow up on your recommendations very soon. Krakkos (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and please take your time. I will complete the review in the meantime then. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Feel free to do so. The lead of the article is currently too long, and i intend to shorten it. It might not be necessary to spend much time on reviewing the lead for the time being. Krakkos (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jens Lallensack, i have now amended the article in accordance with your recommendations.[1] Krakkos (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Krakkos, thank you very much! Remaining comments will follow soon; the first one already below --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After the update, there is now a number of paragraphs that have no source at their end (the first paragraph of the "Name" section is an example). This makes it very difficult to verify the respective information, especially given the high number of sources used in the article. We have to know which sentence is based on which sources, otherwise the article will not be verifiable as required by the Good Article criteria, and needs fixing. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jens Lallensack, i have now made an attempt at improving the sourcing of the article.[2] Krakkos (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to register here: related discussions relevant to the GA review, [3], [4], [5] .--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Status query

Jens Lallensack, Krakkos, where does this review stand? It's been over a month since anything was posted to this page, and it would be nice to get things moving again. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor joined after the review has started, but cooperation between the two didn't go well and now both are blocked from editing the article without clear consensus on the talk page, which makes it difficult to continue the review. But yes, I have to close it now, though I encourage the author to call me back once the dispute is resolved and the article is nominated again, as I am still available for continuing this review. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]