Talk:St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sawyer-mcdonell (talk · contribs) 00:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Did some minor copyediting, but it was easily fixed and overall the prose is very good. I believe a lot of the prose which needed CEing was added by another editor after the nomination.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Overall great, but I'm not sure about the word "treasures" as used in section 6 and its subsections. I don't think it's disqualifying, but perhaps there's a better word that doesn't sound like puffery? - Gone for 'notable artworks' as a more suitable term. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   No actual objections, but perhaps the citations could be organized better? They're a bit hard to parse through as it is. - see query below Amitchell125 (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   B. 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):

   There is an inline "citation needed" template in the second paragraph of subsection 3.1 which needs to be addressed. Otherwise, looks pretty good. - Citation added. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Overall excellent work, just needs a few touchups!

@Amitchell125 hi! just pinging you to this review, to see if we can get these bits addressed & promote the article :) sawyer * he/they * talk 17:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sawyer-mcdonell: Will do. Have you finished your comments? Amitchell125 (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! Sorry if that wasn't clear haha sawyer * he/they * talk 18:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2A (citations)

@Sawyer-mcdonell: Hi, when you say in your review comments "...perhaps the citations could be organized better? They're a bit hard to parse through as it is.", could you explain what the issue is a little more? The citations are done in what I thought was a standard way. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no MOS issues or anything that I think is an actual problem, and the citations themselves are excellent. There are just quite a lot of items in the "Sources" section and I think it might be beneficial to the reader to break it up into subsections, perhaps "Books", "Journal articles", etc. This is just a suggestion on my part, as a reader, rather than necessarily a requirement as a GAN reviewer. I know you've got a lot of experience with the GA process (and I do not), so feel free to push back on me here! sawyer * he/they * talk 21:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now organised by language, as it's the English Wikipedia. Hopefully this will be a help to interested readers. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issues addressed

Hi, the issues you have identified are now I hope addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 08:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! Thanks :) sawyer * he/they * talk 19:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]