Talk:Geoffrey Kirk/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Ballpointbiro (talk · contribs) 13:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I am delighted to pass this nomination! I have put ideas for improvement in italics.

0 - Copyvio check

Earwig found 16% similarity, I checked all results over 10% and I don't have any concerns. The number of long book titles and professorship role titles make up the vast majority of the matches.

1 - Writing

• Section A
  • The prose is clear and encyclopaedic in tone and there are no spelling or grammatical errors. The article deals with the major events of the subject's life in a concise way without rambling.
• Section B
  • The lead section is a good summary of the main points of the article, and gives a good overview even if it is the only part read.
  • The layout is logical and conforms to the MOS, including a succession box (WP:SBS). An improvement could be to add a timeline of professorships, possibly in the main infobox.

 Done I've added the dates to the habitual list workplaces in the infobox. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Perfect Ballpointbiro (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• • There are no words or phrases of concern in the article.
  • The included list of publications is logically formatted and not excessively long.

2 - Verifiability

• Section A
  • All sources are present and working (no dead links)an page references are supplied where required. A wider range of sources would be nice to see but I appreciate that this is not always possible with academics (see WP:PROF).

I've already scraped the barrel in regards to reliable sourcing. With these academics there are normally two kinds of sources: the official obituaries in the PBA and briefer obits in major newspapers. I think I've used both adequately. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree Ballpointbiro (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• • All inline citations are relevant to the section of text they relate to.
  • There are no unattributed comments or original research

3 - Coverage

• Section A
  • The article addresses the major events of the subject's life in a concise manner and selected writings are provided for context. It would be nice to see a section devoted to critical/academic reception of the subject's writings, though I understand this is probably a major task.

My idea was for the "Legacy" section to play this role. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Section B
  • The article does not wander off topic.

4 - Neutrality

• The article deals with the facts of the subject's life in a straightforward way, and does not present polarising viewpoints.

5 - Stability

• The article is stable and is not subject to edit wars.

6 - Illustration

• The article contains a photograph of the subject with an appropriate fair use rationale. Further images of the subject would be good to see. Also, given his career as an author and academic, perhaps some boxed quotes demonstrating his key viewpoints would be appropriate?
  • (external comment) Multiple fair use images are not allowed per WP:NFCC. (t · c) buidhe 17:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The boxed quotes are an interesting idea, though I would prefer not to include citations from Kirk in the article. My reason for this is our aim to be intelligible to a broad readership. Kirk wrote on technical aspects of Greek philology, so I'm not convinced the article will be much helped by displaying extracts from his work. On the pictures, see buidhe's comment. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Modussiccandi pinging since the review has been updated (t · c) buidhe 17:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ballpointbiro and Buidhe: thank you both for alerting me to the updated review. I agree that the article is already at a fairly high level and there isn't much that needs to be addressed. I just wanted to make sure it's done throughly. Please see my comments on your suggestions for improvement above. Thank you, again, for adding some more depth to this review. Do feel free to let it pass. The icon may need to be inserted manually since last time Legobot failed to do this. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Great, thank you ever so much to both of you for being patient with me. This has been a really good learning experience. Best regards Ballpointbiro (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2021 (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.