Talk:Athena/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: TonyBallioni (talk · contribs) 00:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll try to get at this one this week. It is an in-depth article on a vital topic, so it might take some time, but I'll do my best. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
she presided over her sisterhood, the Athenai
is a bit unclear. I'm not sure what her sisterhood is.- I have revised the phrase in question to better explain what the Athenai sisterhood was. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
and thus perhaps the Lady of Athens.
perhaps seems out of place and speculative. If it is a possible translation, there is probably a better way of phrasing it.- I have reworded this passage. "The Mistress of Athens" is a probable translation of "Athana Potnia." It is not speculative; it is used in most works on the subject. In fact, in more recent works, "the Mistress of Athens" seems to be the more common translation; "Athena of Athens" still occurs, but is generally more prevalent in older writings. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
In this aspect, Athena was also known as Parthenos, which means "virgin", because she was believed to have never married or taken a lover
How does this connect to the previous sentence about war? The phrasing seems to link the virginity to it.- Athena Parthenos was envisioned as a warrior maiden; this aspect of her emphasized her status as a virgin and also her status as a warrior. I have amended the passage to try to make this more self-evident. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- 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:
- 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:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Nothing coming up in Earwig.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- No edit wars
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- 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:
- All good
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- Looks fine
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Looks good overall. The only issues I found were those with clarity early in the article, and you've corrected them. I'm passing this now. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
Thank you for agreeing to review this article. I really appreciate it. If you happen to notice any problems at all, I am more than willing to address them. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: Thank you so much! This is the third article I have nominated for GA that has been reviewed and the first one that has passed. I really appreciate you taking the time to review this article. I do still have five articles in the "Philosophy and religion" category that are still currently awaiting review. These are: Inanna, Enlil, Anunnaki, Jonah, and Pythagoras. I also have several other articles I am currently working on trying to bring to GA. In the meantime, I will continue reviewing your article Papal conclave, 1655. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)