# Talk:Second circle of hell

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Third circle of hell which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 04:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Second circle of hell/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: FormalDude (talk · contribs) 07:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I will post updates here as I complete the review. Please allow up to seven days for the review to be completed. ––FormalDude talk 07:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
Great referencing, love the WP:SFN.
B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
Appreciate the page numbers.
C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
Article is quite similar to First circle of Hell and Third circle of hell, which were also written by you. Let's cover some more detail; good class articles are supposed to be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. Some additional background and context could be added for the characters (for example Minos and Homer).
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
No excessive detail, good use of plot summarization.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
The analysis section provides a neutral point of view from high quality academic sources. It really makes this a good encyclopedic article.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
Extremely stable.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Good use of images.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:   Pass All issues addressed.


### Comments
Link first appearance "Christian hell" to Hell in Christianity
Link first appearance of "hell" to Hell in Christianity
Link first appearance of "heaven" to Heaven in Christianity
Link first appearance of "Greek underworld" to Greek underworld
Change murdered lovers whose story was contemporary with, and well-known in, Dante's time. to murdered lovers whose story was contemporary with (and well-known) in Dante's time.
Thanks for taking a look at this. I've amended the links as you mention and reworded the sentence in the lead--as it's just a summary of the body I opted to trim it rather than introduce bracketed asides for the sake of clarity, let know me if that's alright. Changes can be seen here. As to expanding the background--I will take another look for some more material discussing the depiction of Minos but what level of detail do you feel should be devoted to Homer? My inclination would be just to provide a brief gloss as to who he was and what he wrote without going into any real detail, as he's usually considered less influential on the Commedia than Virgil's Aeneids are, but if you feel like more is warranted I can go further. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Some further discussion on the depiction of Minos added here. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
That's great, thanks! This is a very well done article and I'm happy to list it as GA. ––FormalDude talk 16:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your review. If there's anything further you'd like to see addressed, let me know. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)