Talk:Western Roman Empire/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 12:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this on. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ichthyovenator: I'm noticing a lot of missing references for paragraphs, is this a result of splitting paragraphs and the refs just not being applied to the split paragraphs, or are these bits uncited? -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges: On second thoughts my GA nomination of this one might have been premature. I have really only worked on the "History", "Political Aftermath" and "Legacy" sections, all of which I feel are adequately cited. I have tried citing the "Background" section a bit but it is difficult to cite something that I haven't written. Perhaps it would be best to put the review on hold until I can rewrite and cite the lacking sections (or perhaps cut down on them as the "background" bit would be the history of the Roman Empire itself)? It would still be good to have some specific examples of missing references and some general feedback. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ichthyovenator: Sounds good. I'll try and start on that soon. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

GA Criteria

GA Criteria:

1
1.a Y

1.b Y
2
2.a Y

2.b N

2.c Y

2.d Y (16.7% is highest, but PD source.)
3
3.a Y

3.b Y
4
4.a Y
5
5.a Y
6
6.a Y

6.b Y

No DAB links Y
No Dead links Y
Images appropriately licensed Y

Prose Suggestions[edit]

Would you mind if I switch the refs to {{sfn}}? -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea, so go right ahead. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve begun work in User:Iazyges/WRE format. If you want to add refs to sections as I work, that’ll be good. I’m planning on leaving any references I can find an identifier for, and removing the ones I can’t. Then I’ll try and grab page numbers if they aren’t already there. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility would be to drop the GAN for now, and re-vamp the article together, if you're interested. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would be the best idea. The references obviously need work and it would be good to get a second opinion or perhaps rewrites on some parts of the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by Lingzhi[edit]

This article mixes references written freehand (i.e., without a template) with one {{cite book}}. Templates are your friends. Templates are a HUGE help in avoiding errors and inconsistencies, and checking for the same.

To check as many errors as possible in the references and/or notes, I recommend using User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck in conjunction with two other scripts. You can install them as follows:

First, copy/paste importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to Special:MyPage/common.js .
On the same page and below that script add importScript('User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck.js');. Save that page.
Finally go to to Special:MyPage/common.css and add .citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */.

When you've added all those, go to an article to check for various messages in its notes and references. (You may need to clear your browser's cache first). The output of User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck is not foolproof and can be verbose. Use common sense when interpreting output (especially with respect to sorting errors). Reading the explanatory page will help more than a little. The least urgent message of all is probably Missing archive link; archiving weblinks is good practice but lack of archiving will probably not be mentioned in any content review. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]