Talk:Nabataean Aramaic/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 19:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at this one. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seven days have now passed since I put the article on hold. While my concerns under referencing remain, I think that the article is nevertheless above the standard required to clear the GAR bar (mindful of WP:GANOT). I am therefore passing it.

~~For reasons I don't understand, this doesn't seem to be showing my comments: see Talk:Nabataean Aramaic/GA1 UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	A few minor copyedits made. ~~One {{why}} tag left; a minor correction which is beyond the scope of GAN, and so will not affect the passage of this article.~~ No remaining issues here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issue here
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	I have placed a CN tag on an unsourced 'it has been suggested' statement: this needs to be ascribed to a particular source to avoid WP:OR. I've put another on a reference to Joseph Naveh, which is in an uncited sentence followed by one cited to someone else: it might be that they cite Naveh, which could be made clear by either doubling the citation or writing something like 'some scholars, such as Richard, have argued with Naveh's idea that...' The issues above are now fixed, but I have added two tags (a {{by whom}} and {{citation needed}}) where the same has happened: a point of view is ascribed either to a scholar or to the scholarly consensus, both of which should be cited. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply] The one-week hold has expired and these issues remain: I don't think they are serious enough to disqualify the article as a GA (see introductory comments). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply] While this is technically outside the criteria for GAN, I would strongly recommend a move to {{sfn}} or similar templates, with a bibliography: with frequent references to the same source, this would help greatly with coherency. I would also recommend preventing WP:LINKROT by using archive-urls and, more generally, formatting citations (esp. 1, which is a WP:BAREURL) Again, this is outside the GAN criteria, and so will not delay the passing of the article.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	No issue here.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No issue here.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Checked with Earwig's Copyvio tool: no issue.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No issue here.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No issue here.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issue here.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issue here.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All correct.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No issue here.
	7. Overall assessment.	Mostly there - just a few adjustments under 2a needed. Passed after hold period: see comment above UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]