Talk:Tomb of Aegisthus/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 21:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a GA Review on this article, planning on getting it done within the week. Shearonink (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Having read through the article several times, the prose/spelling/grammar are all fine. Shearonink (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Looks good. Shearonink (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Multiple Harv errors & 1 Harv warning. Specifically Ref #s 15, 19, 25, & 33 are throwing "Harv errors", meaning the refs are malformed. See Possible issues with Harvard cites to help you figure out why and how to fix the problems. The Dudley Moore/Edward Rowlands text in the Bibliography is throwing a Harv warning because apparently no refs cite that text. Shearonink (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've now fixed this. Problem seemed to be with the {{sfn}} tags - the documentation seemed to suggest that you either gave author-year or author1-author2, but they needed to be fed additional authors in order to get the right one. I fixed a few of my own boneheaded mistakes in the process as well.

(Incidentally: how did you spot those errors? Just by mousing over each reference?) UndercoverClassicist (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2023
There's a script that you can load onto your common.js page that will highlight any Harvard errors or warnings, it can be found at User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js. If you don't have a common.js page, take a look at mine to see what they look like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shearonink/common.js . Shearonink (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #15 is faulty. A Wikipedia article cannot use another Wikipedia article as a reference plus "Pausanias" is a link to a disambiguation page.Shearonink (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - ref. 15 isn't a reference to the Wiki page on Pausanias, it's to the Classical text written by him and usually cited by his name, which is being referred to in the article. The disambig page link is a fault in the template I used - I should be able to fix that. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now fixed. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the Ref is that it twice links directly to the Pausanias Wikipedia article and regardless of how it is constructed or your intention it gives the appearance of using Wikipedia to reference itself. The Tufts source for 'underground chambers of Atreus and his children, in which were stored their treasures ... and the grave of Agamemnon.' needs to be laid-out more clearly for readers to be able to follow the informational bread-crumbs. Shearonink (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The internationally standard way of citing a Classical source is "Author, Title, Book.Subsection/Lines" (e.g. Homer, Iliad, 5.244). The template simply follows that, which is widely used on Wikipedia and in academic literature, wikilinking the author and title, as is normal in Wikipedia citations for notable people and works. If you look at this book (I just flicked through pp. 196-200), you can see examples both inline (where the author name is omitted as obvious) and in footnotes.

Pausanias is a bit of a special case: as he only wrote one surviving text, and the titles of Classical texts are always a little arbitrary, it's a matter of taste whether to include the title or not.

See here for an external guide or some of the other Perseus-citing templates (e.g. Template:Odyssey, Template: Demosthenes and Template: Thucydides) for the same on Wikipedia.

Are you saying that it would be better if the wikilinks in the template to Pausanias (now disambiged) and Description of Greece were removed? It's an external template (which is made in line with several other, matching, external templates), so I'm not sure if that's really within the scope of a GA review on this particular article. As it stands, I don't see that this is any different to using author-link or wikilinking a work title in a {{cite book}} template - the citation is understood as being to the work itself, not the wikipedia page about that work UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I understand that it is linking to his writings at the tufts website and about the internationally standard way of linking to classic texts and I get what you're saying about Wikilinking to publisher/author/editor etc but that is all within a citation format that lays out clearly what those Wikilinks are I'm just saying that the appearance of this particular reference seems to be going directly to another Wikipedia article. Maybe I'm wrong on this, it's possible - I'll try to get another opinion on this tomorrow, if that's ok? Shearonink (talk) 08:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is allowed; I routinely wiki-link books, if they have an article. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TrangaBellam Sorry?...you misunderstand my point, of COURSE there is no issue with wikilinking books or authors etc within a citation/cite web/book/whatever, but the linkage I am having an issue with links directly to the Wikipedia article while this article's every other citation links to a clearly delineated source/book placed within the article's Bibliography. I've done over 100 GA Reviews and have never seen this form/format before so I am having trouble with it. Am doing some more research on the matter, thanks. Shearonink (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is this satisfactory? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your interest & contribution but while you were editing the article I had decided to let the Nominator's ref format stand as it does not specifically go against GA criteria. That I am unfamiliar with such a construct doesn't mean that as the reviewer I should stand in the article's way to becoming a GA. Thanks anyway, Shearonink (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
See last point in 2A about Ref#15. Shearonink (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns about the ref's formatting have been dealt with, I consider Ref #15 to be a non-issue. Shearonink (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:
Statements are sourced. Shearonink (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Ran Earwig's Copyvio Tool and no violations found. Shearonink (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
No issues. Shearonink (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Nicely-done. Shearonink (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Factual. Shearonink (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Very stable, no edit-warring. Shearonink (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Almost all of the images' permissions/copyright status/CC-BY-SA status is correct except for the photo of Christos Tsountas. It is impossible for a photo of a man who lived from 1857-1934 to be the uploader's work. The photo is apparently from/held by the National Archaeological Museum of Athens and its copyright status is unclear. Shearonink (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Images are all relevant to the topic and are nicely-captioned. Shearonink (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot. It's displayed in the NAM, but I don't know the source - a digital copy of the image is part of this sign. It was obviously taken before the magic publication year of 1927 (T. was born in 1857 and is clearly not 70 in that image), but the million-dollar question is when it was published... I've just gone ahead and swapped it out. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Images now pass GA muster. Shearonink (talk)
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Am going over the article in-depth again, just in case I've missed something. Also 2A/Ref#15 needs to be fixed. Shearonink (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Slowly reading over the article one last time, everything is looking good, am doing research on the format of Ref #15. Shearonink (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats it's a GA. Shearonink (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]