GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: FormalDude (talk · contribs) 07:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will post updates here as I complete the review. Please allow up to seven days for the review to be completed. ––FormalDude talk 07:49, 9 January 2022 (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:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. 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:
    Great referencing, love the WP:SFN.
    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:
    Appreciate the page numbers.
    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:
    Article is quite similar to First circle of Hell and Third circle of hell, which were also written by you. Let's cover some more detail; good class articles are supposed to be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. Some additional background and context could be added for the characters (for example Minos and Homer).
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    No excessive detail, good use of plot summarization.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    The analysis section provides a neutral point of view from high quality academic sources. It really makes this a good encyclopedic article.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    Extremely stable.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Good use of images.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  Pass All issues addressed.

Comments