Talk:Matthew of Ephesus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | Matthew of Ephesus is currently a World history good article nominee. Nominated by Neoptolemos7 (talk) at 22:03, 6 June 2026 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review this article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor. When complete, this review will be closed by the reviewer. To view the review and add comments, click discuss review. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reviewer: JammyDodger357 (talk · contribs) 06:16, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
GA review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Matthew of Ephesus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hello, I'm Jammy
I will start by applauding you for your effort writing and editing and improving this article, and I hope that this will continue into the future and during this review. Below, I will show how the article fits with each of the GA criteria, but here are my main points.
The first and most predominant point is the overuse of quotes. I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Overquoting, as that is probably the best explained version for overquoting that I can find, but Wikipedia:Quotations#Overuse is also applicable. Generally, the number of quotes in this article is so large that it could be argued it constitutes a copyright violation. Indeed, 534/2264 (about a quarter) of the text are quotations. Obviously we don't want this, and this should not be too difficult of a change to simply paraphrase some of the quotes. As may be obvious, am not an expert in this, and I understand quoting contemporary sources, such as Mathew, but are the quotes from more modern academic scholars, such as Batista necessary?
Of secondary importance is the guidelines for the first sentence. This may need to be improved - to quote the Manual of Style MOS:FIRST:
"The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where."
The above fits with the article, however it is also necessary to follow MOS:LEADCLUTTER, in which it details how the first sentence should be, so I would recommend reading over that.
Now for the GA Criteria:
1.Well-Written
This article near perfectly fits with this: It is concise and understandable; the Layout is correct...
However, there is the small problem of the Lead section. It may be wished for the Lead section to be longer than a single sentence, to better summarise the article. As mentioned above, the first sentence (coincidentally the same thing) should be improved.
2. Verifiable with no original research
Besides the issue of the overuse of quotes (detailed above), this article passes this criteria.
3. Broad in its coverage
As mentioned above, I have very little knowledge in this area, so take the following with a small grain of salt. Currently, the article is somewhat short - this leads me to ask whether there is any more detail that you could go into in places, as to make the coverage more broad.
4. Neutral
This article is neutral.
5. Stable
This article is stable.
6. Illustrated
This article is well-Illustrated.
Conclusion
I would also recommend - although this is optional - to, if possible, find a few more reliable citations.
Again, thank you for your dedication to this article. The changes required are not massive. I do not think it should take longer than a week to fix - if you think it will take longer or you are unable to edit at this time, I will give you an extension for longer than a week.
- Jammy 06:16, 26 June 2026 (UTC)