Talk:Types of Women

Types of Women has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 27, 2017. (Reviewed version).

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greece Low‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Poetry Low‑importance

	Poetry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text of Poem[edit]

I thought the version of the poem I added to the page was an old translation in public domain. I'll verify before adding one back in, but I do think that having the text will be helpful. —Zujine|talk 00:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zujine, The text's source URL didn't mention that a date or a translator if I remember correctly. While I certainly agree that quoting is a really good idea, I'm not sure that Wikipedia (rather than Wikisource) is the best place to host a full translation? Anyway, if you can find one, I certainly won't remove it ;). Brigade Piron (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Types of Women/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Katolophyromai (talk · contribs) 17:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. I have read through it once and it seems to be a very promising candidate. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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:

I have re-read the article several times over and the writing quality is clearly top-notch.
The article is well-cited and contains plenty of references.
The article provides an extensive overview of the poem in question.
The article has no problems with POV; all of the opinions described in the article are clearly attributed to modern scholars and are not spoken in Wikipedia's voice.
The article is completely stable. I could find no trace of edit-warring or vandalism in the recent article history and the content of the article remains consistent from day-to-day.
The image of the archaic figurine of the pig is an excellent addition to the article, but, if you can find an image of a Greek manuscript of the poem itself, that might be a better image to use for the main image. The pig image might fit better in the "Content" section.

Overall, I think that this article is a clear and easy pass. It thoroughly addresses all of the GA criteria. If you think I have made a mistake and this article is not yet ready, please let me know. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]