GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: LavaBaron ( talk · contribs) 18:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Well Written ✗ Fail <- @
LavaBaron: This is now a pass, yes?
Abel (
talk)
15:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Verifiable ✓ Pass
Broad <- @
LavaBaron: This is now a pass, yes?
Abel (
talk)
15:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Neutral <- @
LavaBaron: This is now a pass, yes?
Abel (
talk)
15:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
:**The lead does not mention that he is only mentioned by Jordanes (if my understanding is correct).
Borsoka (
talk)
06:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Stable ✓ Pass
Illustrated ✓ Pass
The reviewer has asked for a second opinion. No doubt the opinion of an expert would be preferable to that of a layman like me, but as no expert has come forward, I add my comments here. The article strikes me as neutral: I see no hint of pro- or anti-Bozh bias. As to its breadth, I have briefly searched online, in subscription sites as well as free ones, and I find very little on the topic: I conclude that the article meets GA criterion 3. The prose is not magnificent, but it will suffice, except in the penultimate sentence of "Story of Bozh", where the "however" (if we must have that intrusive and rarely necessary word) needs a stronger stop than a comma. Ideally, ", however," would be replaced by a semicolon. Hope these comments are helpful. –
Tim riley
talk
07:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm limiting my comments to only this point. In this article, king Boz is said to have lived in the late 4th century. However, in the related article Antes, it is asserted that the earliest mention of the Antes people is 518, when they invaded the Diocese of Thrace; one of these two articles is wrong, & this contradiction should be fixed before this article can be promoted to GA. (I suspect it's the other article that needs correcting, but I'm not an expert on the subject either.) -- llywrch ( talk) 22:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
It looks like the comments have been addressed and the second review provided, so I'm closing this. Wizardman 16:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: LavaBaron ( talk · contribs) 18:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Well Written ✗ Fail <- @
LavaBaron: This is now a pass, yes?
Abel (
talk)
15:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Verifiable ✓ Pass
Broad <- @
LavaBaron: This is now a pass, yes?
Abel (
talk)
15:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Neutral <- @
LavaBaron: This is now a pass, yes?
Abel (
talk)
15:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
:**The lead does not mention that he is only mentioned by Jordanes (if my understanding is correct).
Borsoka (
talk)
06:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Stable ✓ Pass
Illustrated ✓ Pass
The reviewer has asked for a second opinion. No doubt the opinion of an expert would be preferable to that of a layman like me, but as no expert has come forward, I add my comments here. The article strikes me as neutral: I see no hint of pro- or anti-Bozh bias. As to its breadth, I have briefly searched online, in subscription sites as well as free ones, and I find very little on the topic: I conclude that the article meets GA criterion 3. The prose is not magnificent, but it will suffice, except in the penultimate sentence of "Story of Bozh", where the "however" (if we must have that intrusive and rarely necessary word) needs a stronger stop than a comma. Ideally, ", however," would be replaced by a semicolon. Hope these comments are helpful. –
Tim riley
talk
07:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm limiting my comments to only this point. In this article, king Boz is said to have lived in the late 4th century. However, in the related article Antes, it is asserted that the earliest mention of the Antes people is 518, when they invaded the Diocese of Thrace; one of these two articles is wrong, & this contradiction should be fixed before this article can be promoted to GA. (I suspect it's the other article that needs correcting, but I'm not an expert on the subject either.) -- llywrch ( talk) 22:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
It looks like the comments have been addressed and the second review provided, so I'm closing this. Wizardman 16:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)