Talk:The Birth of a Nation/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Katolophyromai (talk · contribs) 00:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I will review this article. I have already read through it and I will admit I am a little in awe; you have done excellent work here, MagicatthemovieS, and I think this article will pass review very quickly. I will read through it a few more times in the coming days and try to find any problems that might need to be pointed out. Once again, excellent work! --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Correction: After checking the edit history, I see that much of the structure of the article was already here before you came, but, nonetheless, I congratulate you on your improvements! --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Are there any changes you would like me to make to this article? Also, you may want to mention Maya (mother of the Buddha) in your discussion of the virgin birth in the Jesus in comparitive mythology article.--MagicatthemovieS

@MagicatthemovieS: I am still thinking about the changes. I made a few minor adjustments to paragraph layout. I already knew about Maya from my work on the article Miraculous birth and I was planning on adding mention of her, but I had not yet gotten around to it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: The Jesus in comparitive mythology article is coming along nicely. Just as a reminder, GA reviews are supposed to last up to 7 days, and it has been 7 days since this review began. Thanks again for your help!--MagicatthemovieS

@MagicatthemovieS: I apologize; I was meaning to pass this a few days ago, but I have not really had much time because I have been very busy and I was trying to think of criticisms to have you address first. I do not think I can really find any at the moment, so I will just go ahead and pass this. I think it meets all the criteria. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments

2d. One website came up in the copyvio search as a certain match, but I checked the site and the website very obviously copied the article from Wikipedia, so no worries there. A few others came up, but those were only because of an extended quote. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)