Talk:Trajan/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 14:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley talk 14:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments after first read through for spelling, punctuation etc:

The article uses mostly American spellings, but a few English spellings have crept in and should be Americanised for consistency: "unfavourable", "formalisation", "honour", "imperilled" and "Christianisation", unless any of these spellings is authorised in a reputable American dictionary.
Parenthetic dashes: the article is a mish-mash of hyphens, en-dashes, unspaced em-dashes and spaced em-dashes. You must comply with the Manual of Style and standardise on either spaced en-dashes or unspaced em-dashes throughout. I know some editors find it difficult to spot these differences, and I hope you will feel free to say if you have difficulty with this: I can help if necessary.
All the colloquial "wasn't"s, "didn't"s and "it's"s must be changed into "was not", "did not", "it is" etc. See MOS:N'T.

Those will need to be put right before the article meets the GA standard for prose. More detailed comments, following close reading, will follow a.s.a.p. – Tim riley talk 14:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before I start work on a close reading, may I just check that the nominator is intending to deal with the above points in the next few days? If not, there isn't much point to my proceeding further. Tim riley talk 12:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tim Riley, I'm more than willing to press further the GAN for this article. What am I supposed to do?Cerme (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the points above are clear. If you attend to them we can move on. Tim riley talk 10:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a loyt!. I fear I will need help wish the dashes, though - I'm not familiar with the conventions used. Cerme (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been remiss in failing to spot that the nominator has had no part in the writing of this article, and is on present evidence not able to make the necessary changes to bring it up to GA standard. I am failing the nomination, but I will be happy to help with any upgrade preparatory to a second nomination. Tim riley talk 21:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]