Talk:Zoroastrianism/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BlackfullaLinguist (talk · contribs) 13:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have started a review of this article! I would like to note to anyone reading this review that my review is strictly according to the Good Article standards and I have no interest in debate surrounding the content - only how the content has been treated according to the criteria. Here is my review:

1. The lead is excellent, it contains all the necessary information and is well cited.

2. Please find a cite for this line 'As in many other faiths, Zoroastrians are encouraged to marry others of the same faith, but this is not a requirement outside of traditionalist communities.' as this suggests that they are endogamous and I believe this should be cited.

3. The terminology section has no citations and is not verifiable, please go through the article and assure that WP:CS is being adequately adhered too.

4. The article is most certainly broad enough, and borders on FA status in content, excellent work to all contributors!

5 The illustrations and media are excellent and again are of a high status.

6. The article is well written and the prose and links are constructed well.

7. I note the article is protected, and it is an important topic due to its status as a religion, so I do consider it stable, though stress that all controversial points need to be well cited, and prominent opposing views need to be included to maintain neutrality.

I believe with minor adjustments and the citations that this article meets GA status, and am giving contributors 7 days to make the suggested adjustments and/or discuss them further with me. BlackfullaLinguist (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Xhepablo:, thank you for your quick response. I've had another look at the page, and I've just noted there is a [specify] tag in the first section of the history, a [by whom?] tag in the second note, and three [citation needed] tags across the article. Please resolve these if you can. 01:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Xhepablo and BlackfullaLinguist: Hey folks. Just wanted to check in on how this review is progressing since there hasn't seem to been any progress in the past month. :) --Dom497 (talk) 02:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion requested

In the absence of BlackfullaLinguist, who hasn't edited this page since August 2 and has made minimal Wikipedia edits since, and Xhepablo, who appears to have made a number of edits in response to this review on August 3 (but never posted here about it), and as also been inactive since then, I have taken the liberty of requesting a second opinion (or second reviewer) of this GA nomination.

What I'm hoping the new reviewer can do is to check to see both whether Xhepablo's edits address the concerns raised in BlackfullaLingust's review, and also check to make sure there are no other issues with the GA criteria that ought to be fixed. With luck, the article meets the criteria; if not, then hopefully the necessary fixes can be made. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm definitely still here. Have been wondering what became of this. Xhepablo —Preceding undated comment added 22:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here to give a second opinion; pinging @Xhepablo:

Ref added for marriages line, which has also been clarified
Sources added for Terminology section
I also agree there could be more coverage of if there is significantly notable oppositions to elements of the religion or religious group from outside, but don't think that this is important enough to the topic (an outside overview doesn't suggest it has big opponents) to need this explored to be classed as GA
Well written throughout
I would promote this, unless a specialist sees gaps? Kingsif (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsif, it's been two weeks, and no specialist has come along (or has done in the five months since the review was opened) with concerns about gaps. Under the circumstances, and since you're the only active reviewer here, I think it would be appropriate for you to do the promotion now. Should it turn out later that there are any significant gaps, there is always the GAR process (or someone could simply fill in the missing information) at that time. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - with no issues evident, this passes. Kingsif (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]