GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 17:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I'll start this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am going through the article once more to add the missing articles. I have fixed the rest, but I am unsure about capitalizing "kings" because MOS:JOBTITLES advises against that. Surtsicna (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great. King by itself should not be capitalized; King (name) should be.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's been my practice too. Surtsicna (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna:

I saw this list only after my extensive copy-editing just completed. I've gone back and addressed the usage issues raised here (those not already coincidentally addressed during my copy-edit), except for the the reference to Tvrtko as the "elder", not "eldest", of two brothers, which is correct in that context, and even slightly more informative. However, I can see how "eldest" might be preferred, as such usage in all contexts is more familiar to me as a native American. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

Hi. This review is standing at 86 days old as I type this. Although there is some recent activity here and Sturmvogel 66 is a more than capable reviewer I am willing to offer my services as a second opinion on anything if it is needed to advance this. AIRcorn (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aircorn, I think the primary issue at the moment is that the nominator, Surtsicna, has not edited on Wikipedia for over five weeks now. (I've just marked a DYK nomination of Surtsicna's for closure that has been waiting for that long.) I would imagine that what this primarily needs is someone to address the issues raised in the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aircorn, BlueMoonset, and Surtsicna: Looks like Surtsicna is back, and Sturmvogel 66 is still out. Maybe best to release this back into the pool for a full review? Kees08 (Talk) 07:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if Surtsicna is ready to go to work and Aircorn is willing to take over the review, the review could just continue at this time. Otherwise, perhaps putting it back into the pool is best. Surtsicna, Aircorn, it's up to you what happens next. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get right to it. I believe most of the issues have been addressed. Surtsicna (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having gone through the article again, it seems that all the issues noted by Sturmvogel 66 have been fixed, largely thanks to Dhtwiki's superb copy-editing. Surtsicna (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In doing a cleanup of the abandoned reviews I noticed this one. Clearly Sturm's long gone at this point, and everything has been addressed. I don't see any further issues with the article, so I'm stepping in and passing it. Wizardman 21:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]