Talk:Marsala Punic shipwreck/GA1
Latest comment: 7 months ago by Kusma in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 14:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Will review this soon! —Kusma (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Kusma Super! Thanks for your input, I’ll begin fixing the issues shortly. el.ziade (talkallam) 08:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Elias Ziade, I've been mostly away and not very active, but I'm back now. Do you think you can get to the remaining issues so we can wrap this up soon? —Kusma (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Content review edit
resolved issues
|
---|
|
Comments on GA criteria edit
- Prose: The article would generally benefit from further copyediting for clarity.
- References reasonably formatted. Some would like page numbers, and Navistory should have
|lang=fr
. - Source reliability:
- Anzovin is not a great source. Such "fact books" that have no references often prepetuate rumours instead of properly presenting current scholarly discourse
- Used for a hook. It was the only source accessible to me that mentions that it was the oldest military ship wreck on record.
- What makes Bocquelet a reliable source? The page seems rather imperfectly translated from French, and possibly self-published.
- Replaced.
- Why is Leveque a reliable source? Looks like a SPS
- I only used him because he's easily accessible and corroborates other sources (never alone).
- Same for Navistory.
- Images are suitably licensed and relevant. ALT text would be nice but optional.
- ALT images coming up
- I see that AirshipJungleman29 has merged some of the sections. I agree with this action, which answers my (so far unspoken) concern that some of the sections are too short. —Kusma (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
Source checks edit
Looking at special:permanentlink/1170401809.
- 1b: ok
- 3: ok
- 9: this should (a) be more reliably sourced and (b) this is a fairly close paraphrase, very similar in structure to the corresponding paragraph in the source. Would suggest to rewrite and to use a better source, for example [1].
- 14a: could not access; could you provide the quote from the source that supports the content? (no need to translate, French is fine)
- 18: ok. You could also mention that on p. 275, Frost tells us that the alphabet used indicates the ship was built between 300 and 260 BC.
- 20: I have accessed a different edition of the book, and could find content on the battle, but what in the source supports the claim "The Marsala ships may have played a role in the momentous Battle of the Aegates in 241 BC"? Please provide the quote.
"* It's from Frost's work, sorry for the confusion. el.ziade (talkallam) 16:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.