Talk:Parteniy Pavlovich/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
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):
No images. Images like that of the Princely Academy of Saint Sava.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

"regarded as one of the precursors of Paisius of Hilendar." Who is Paisius? Add a brief description.
Ref 1 is dead, has no author and publication date
Ref 2,3 have no page numbers
Ref 5 is dead too.
This article is particularly short. The man has written an autobiography, which may have more information about him. Also missing are the names of the "few poetical works and many translations of religious books", which are needed here. I would expect to see a whole section about his literary works. What are the themes in his poetic works? What is tone of his autobiography etc? Something about his writing style. Something about his influence in present day Bulgaria. Why is he is regarded as one of the precursors of Paisius of Hilendar? What did he do to be "A champion of the South Slavic revival" (neutrality is an issue if not in reference)?
"He died in Austrian Karlowitz in 1760." How did he die? Where is he buried? OR was he cremated?
" According to some sources" ^[who?] exactly? Vague term
Also add an infobox and Wikipedia:Persondata.

GA FAIL due to two main issues: "broad in coverage" and references. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I double-checked the refs, none are dead. #2 is a CD and #3 has a page number. I'm not going to contest this review, but it probably should have been put on hold so I can work on it. I don't think the issues that you listed (the valid ones) are incorrigible. Still, thanks for the review. Best, Todor →Bozhinov 13:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the references again from Mozilla and IE, still I can not get to them. Make clear #2 is a CD, it uses cite book template. You can go for a Wikipedia:Good article reassessment or renominate at WP:GAN following the changes. I usually fail the article if two criteria fail. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. It's either your ISP or some kind of limit on the sites, but they're both online for me. If I decide on improving the article, I'll renominate. Best, Todor →Bozhinov 15:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]