Ethiopia in the Middle Ages has been listed as one of the
History 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: January 5, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ethiopia in the Middle Ages article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Ethiopia in the Middle Ages appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 1 September 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety of English over any other. Varieties (for example American English or British English) differ in vocabulary (elevator vs. lift), spelling (defense vs. defence), and occasionally grammar. Some of our articles ( such as English plurals and Comparison of American and British English ) provide information about such differences.
An article's date formatting (May 25, 2024 vs. 25 May 2024) is also related to national varieties of English – see MOS:DATEFORMAT and especially MOS:DATETIES and MOS:DATEVAR - but is not a conclusive ' tiebreaker'.
Within this article the conventions of one particular variety of English should be followed consistently.
[Exceptions include:
Retain the existing variety
When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or the change reduces ambiguity), there is no valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another.
When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post- stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety. The established variety in a given article can be documented by placing the appropriate Varieties of English template on its talk page.
An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another. The {{
uw-engvar}}
template may be placed on an editor's talk page to explain this.
Opportunities for commonality
For an international encyclopedia, using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable.
Strong national ties to a topic
An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation since the ENGVAR rules are concerned with English varieties that exist in a codified, formal written register with their own style guides. For example:
For topics with strong ties to Commonwealth of Nations countries and other former British territories, use Commonwealth English orthography, largely indistinguishable from British English in encyclopedic writing (excepting Canada, which uses a different orthography). --05h24, 26 August 2021 (UTC) Bushel C andle
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk) 00:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Created/expanded by Thiqq ( talk). Nominated by A. C. Santacruz ( talk) at 00:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: Article is new enough, long, sourced (very interesting read!). Hook is cited in article (assuming good faith) and interesting. no copyvio and qpq is done. BuySomeApples ( talk) 06:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
To T:DYK/P4I believe that this article's promotion to "B" class on the quality scale for Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethiopia is justified - not least because, at the time of promotion, there were no criteria defined to assess "C" class at WikiProject_Ethiopia/Assessments ! --06:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Bushel C andle
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Shushugah ( talk · contribs) 20:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I will begin my review below. I am looking forward to working with you on bringing this article to GA status.
Good Article review progress box
|
This article is almost GA status. The quality and formatting of the references are excellent. The images are all highly relevant (and well situated). I even learned about the Free Art License used for one of the images.
All in all, really nicely done! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)