Talk:Minuscule 1582/GA1

GA Review

Passed. - Frzzl talk; contribs 21:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Reviewer: Frzzl (talk · contribs) 09:30, 1 August 2023 (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 (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): Earwig turned up with 2.9%, which is lovely. It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): Seems absolutely fine to me, having read some related materials. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: - as another reviewer noted on one of your previous nominations, "If someone tried to edit war on this page, I would have no clue how they'd do it." 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): All images used are Library of Congress, public domain. Captions are relevant and suitable.
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Review

Hello! I've chosen to review this article, hopefully it should go quite smoothly. Frzzl talk; contribs 09:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Points

I've read through the article, and it is very good. A couple of points, some of which I've partially WP:BOLDed:

WTW The article is in places pitched with too complex a vocabulary; while I for one am a darling for the use of "howbeit", the average reader isn't. Please go through and make sure that when a complex sentence can be simplified, it is.
Some minor inconsistencies in presentation - is "Ephraim" italicised or not? Do we have "gospels" or "Gospels" (this I've changed to lowercase in the lead, but it is your choice)
The lead should be longer. Copy in its present location, and some more information about its history.
I think that the image in the "Text" section should be right-aligned per MOS:IMAGELOC. The image should also have an alt= parameter for accessibility.
Half of the first paragraph of the "Text" section is supported by one megaref of 25 pages. Could you break it up to cupport individual points with a narrower page scope?
t has further significance in being written by the monk Ephraim - should this be "According to Kim..."? Significance is subjective, and since this was already talking about Kim's work, imo this should be here.

Spotchecks

Have looked at following references (according to rev 1168201036):

11 (OK)
all appearances of 2 (OK), that took a lot of looking up abbreviations haha
all appearances of 6 (OK)
several examples of 5 with the help of Google Books

so, am happy with the sourcing and references. Appear to be reliable and verifiable.

Status

Stephen Walch, I'll put the review On Hold for probably the rest of the month as you're not here all the time, which is fine. Ping me when you see this and we can finish it off :D Frzzl talk; contribs 13:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Frzzl - thanks very much for the comments. I'll look at implementing your suggestions over the coming days, and let you know when I think I've acquiesced to them successfully. :) Stephen Walch (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Frzzl : I believe I've sorted out the article now in accordance with your suggestions. Let me know if I need to amend anything else. Stephen Walch (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have put together two more paragraphs, but everything else seems just fine to me.

Passing, congrats! :D Frzzl talk; contribs 22:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Frzzl :) Stephen Walch (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.