Talk:Theatre of Pompey/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments

There is a lot of information in the article, but several sections/subsections lack in-line citations; so this article is non-compliant in respect of WP:Verify and possibly WP:OR.

I'm not going to fail the article at this point, as it is capable of being improved. However, the article is likely to be placed On Hold, rather than receive a Pass. Pyrotec (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I will now review the article section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. Pyrotec (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• History -

• Reference 2 is broken, it gives an 404 error message; the web address needs updating.
• 3rd paragraph unreferenced
• 4th paragraph unreferenced

• • Architecture -

• Entirely unreferenced

• Complex -

• Entirely unreferenced

• • Temples -

• Mostly unreferenced, only Temple A has a footnote.

• • Porticus Pompei -

• Entirely unreferenced

• • Curia, assassination of Caesar -

• Generally well referenced, however:
• Reference 9 is a book and the page number of the in-line citations needs to be provided.
• The final three paragraphs are unreferenced.

• The site today -

• The first paragraph is unreferenced and it has a {{citation needed}} flag.
• 3rd paragraph unreferenced
• 4th paragraph unreferenced
• 6th paragraph unreferenced

• • Archaeology -

• Entirely unreferenced

• Existing Roman theatres in the same style -

• 1st paragraph unreferenced

• WP:Lead -

• A reasonable lead.

I'm putting the WP:GAN On Hold at this point. Pyrotec (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The article's inline citations can easily be expanded. I will get to work on that.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Real life got in the way ......I understand if you want to move on. I should have time in the next few days though.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

An interesting article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm closing this nomination as little, if any, work has been carried out in correcting the non-compliances highlighted above. The article can of course be resubmitted for WP:GAN, but I would suggest that the referencing is improved before doing so. Pyrotec (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)