Talk:Marcian/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Katolophyromai (talk · contribs) 04:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I will review this article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

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 (references): 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, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments

1. There were no spelling or grammar error that I noticed and the article meets all the stylistic guidelines, to the best of my knowledge.
2. The article is very well cited and the sources are reliable. You could perhaps provide links to the Google Books editions for easier verification, if any of the books cited have previews available on Google Books. The plagiarism checker comes up with zero percent similarity, so I am pretty sure plagiarism is not an issue here.
3. The article covers all the essential aspects, but I thought I would point out that the article never states how he died. The article List of Roman emperors#Theodosian dynasty (379–457) states that he died of "natural causes." It might be a good idea to clarify this and, if anything is known about the precise circumstances of his death, I would strongly recommend that you include such information.
4. I did not notice any obvious biases and, to me, the article seemed completely neutral.
5. The article is completely stable and the recent edit history reveals absolutely no traces of edit-warring.
6. The article is illustrated by a sufficient number of useful images. I think all the images are appropriately licensed and the Commons pages all state that they are licensed, but I am known to have made mistakes regarding the various complex and confusing intricacies of international copyright law in the past, so it may be a good idea for someone else to double check and make sure I am right.

All in all, I think this article completely fulfills all of the GA criteria. Congratulations! Excellent work! --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)