Talk:Gregory of Nyssa/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 19:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Technical review

• (Disambiguations): no dabs found by the tools;
• (Linkrot) external links all report as working except one -- Relics of St. Gregory of Nyssa. I'd trim back that external link section, too, if I were you, but it's not necessary.

 Done I've trimmed the external link section back. I don't have any problem accessing the photograph of his relics on http://www.oorthodoxphotos.com - why does it report as dead ? --He to Hecuba (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it works for me, too. Don't know why it came up as dead. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• Good, clear writing about complex concepts.
• No MOS problems in the text. With the citations, the only things I'd fix are (1) in the bibliography -- some authors are listed last name first, others first name first; standardization would make it neater and easier to look through. And (2) cite to the author's name, not the book names in the inline citation. You seem to do both and it makes it hard to look up a reference.

 Question: - in the citation style I'm using, how should I cite a work which has multiple authors. Should it be cited to the editor ? I thought it would be better to use the name of the book. I'll standardize the bibliography. --He to Hecuba (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd use the editor(s), but I'm not sure that's the only right answer. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll sort that now. Thanks for your time in reviewing this article - I'm pleased to have earned my first GA. --He to Hecuba (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure! Nice article, I'm glad to have read it. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• Good references, as far as I can tell, and well-cited throughout. Doesn't appear to have any original research.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• It covers the man, his ideas, and his legacy.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• No POV action that I can see.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• No drama here.

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:

• Images are all centuries old.

• So, once the cites are in order, I think this is good to go. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • All done. --He to Hecuba (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)