Talk:Renaissance in Scotland
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Renaissance in Scotland article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Temple of Solomon ? | |
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Architecture Mid‑importance | |||||||
|
GA Review
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Renaissance in Scotland/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 10:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks.
I've already done a quick read of the article, and it appears to be at or about GA level. I'm now working my way through the body of the article and then I'll go back and look at the Lead.
- Definitions and debates -
- Looks OK. I just added a couple of wikilinks whilst I was working my way through this section.
- Court and kingship -
- Looks OK. I added some wikilinks whilst I was working my way through this section, and I believe that Constantine (in the second paragraph) should be linked, but there are quite a few Constantine's to choose from.
- Education -
... Stopping for now. Pyrotec (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Looks OK.
- Literature -
- Looks OK.
- Architecture -
- Looks OK. I seem to remember reviewing and awarding, a well-deserved, GA-status to the {{main article}} a month or so ago.
- Looks OK. I seem to remember reviewing and awarding, a well-deserved, GA-status to the {{
- Art & Music-
... Stopping for now. Pyrotec (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Both sections look OK, but I added one or two wikilinks.
- Decline and influence -
- Looks OK. I just added one wikilink.
- WP:Lead-
This is quite a "compact" lead for an article of this length. It appears to perform what is needed to comply with
WP:Lead
, with possibly one exception. I don't think it summarises anything in the Court and kingship section - one of seven sections excluding Definitions and debates (and Notes). Nevertheless, I going to award GA-status, for the reasons given later.
Overall summary
WP:WIAGA for criteria
An informative and well-referenced article.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. lists:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A.
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
I'm pleased to be able to award this article GA-status. Its quite a strong GA and (I'd suggest
WP:Lead may need a bit more "meat", but perhaps not much more, to get through FAC. As noted in the previous subsection, the lead might not be summarising material in the Court and kingship section. Pyrotec (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
]