GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Nominator: Seltaeb Eht ( talk · contribs) 00:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Tim riley ( talk · contribs) 10:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Starting the review. More a.s.a.p.
Tim riley
talk
10:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
From a first canter-through looking for typos etc my first comment is that although the article is generally in BrE – centre, colour, favour, honour, metres, neighbouring, Sepulchre, spectre – the odd AmE spelling has crept in: neighbors, traveled. Most noticeable of all is the inconsistency of –ise and –ize forms. We have emphasised and we have emphasizes, recognised and recognized, standardised and standardized. Other –ise endings in the text are canonised, characterisations, Christianised, criticising, finalised, harmonise and idealised; other –ize forms are baptized, characterized, legitimized, organization, popularized and realizing.
I'll begin a proper study of the text next. Meanwhile pray ponder the above points. Tim riley talk 10:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
On English usage - yes, the article should be in BrE - it was tagged as such when I arrived, and the more prominent English-language scholars are from the UK. But as an American, I and my spellchecker often slip, so any catches on those are welcome. Seltaeb Eht ( talk) 15:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I must make it clear at the outset that the following are merely my suggestions, to be acted on or rejected as you see fit. I have found nothing in the text that I think must be changed to meet the GA criteria.
That's all from me for now. This article seems to me to have the potential for FAC, and if you take it on to that stage I shall have some pickier comments on some of the prose, but it will unquestionably suffice for GA. Over to you. Tim riley talk 12:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for all your suggestions, User:Tim riley - a couple left open above for your further comment ("but modern historians", "through 799", and "focused" comments).
Don't know about FAC, we'll see - a lot of work just to get it here, and related articles are still in need of a lot of attention. Seltaeb Eht ( talk) 15:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Nominator: Seltaeb Eht ( talk · contribs) 00:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Tim riley ( talk · contribs) 10:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Starting the review. More a.s.a.p.
Tim riley
talk
10:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
From a first canter-through looking for typos etc my first comment is that although the article is generally in BrE – centre, colour, favour, honour, metres, neighbouring, Sepulchre, spectre – the odd AmE spelling has crept in: neighbors, traveled. Most noticeable of all is the inconsistency of –ise and –ize forms. We have emphasised and we have emphasizes, recognised and recognized, standardised and standardized. Other –ise endings in the text are canonised, characterisations, Christianised, criticising, finalised, harmonise and idealised; other –ize forms are baptized, characterized, legitimized, organization, popularized and realizing.
I'll begin a proper study of the text next. Meanwhile pray ponder the above points. Tim riley talk 10:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
On English usage - yes, the article should be in BrE - it was tagged as such when I arrived, and the more prominent English-language scholars are from the UK. But as an American, I and my spellchecker often slip, so any catches on those are welcome. Seltaeb Eht ( talk) 15:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I must make it clear at the outset that the following are merely my suggestions, to be acted on or rejected as you see fit. I have found nothing in the text that I think must be changed to meet the GA criteria.
That's all from me for now. This article seems to me to have the potential for FAC, and if you take it on to that stage I shall have some pickier comments on some of the prose, but it will unquestionably suffice for GA. Over to you. Tim riley talk 12:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for all your suggestions, User:Tim riley - a couple left open above for your further comment ("but modern historians", "through 799", and "focused" comments).
Don't know about FAC, we'll see - a lot of work just to get it here, and related articles are still in need of a lot of attention. Seltaeb Eht ( talk) 15:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria