Talk:Game board

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 19:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the oldest known game boards (for the Royal Game of Ur, dated to c. 2500 BCE)
One of the oldest known game boards (for the Royal Game of Ur, dated to c. 2500 BCE)
Created by Piotrus (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 510 past nominations.

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

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
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: I've amended the introductory line per WP:REFERS. Approving with strong preference for ALT0, and possible wikilinking to the periods.

GA review

Passed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:18, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 04:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Bgsu98 (talk · contribs) 03:09, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello… I will do this review and hope to begin it tomorrow. It looks very interesting! 😃 Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:09, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. 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:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments (8/16/25)

User:Piotrus: The images are good, but they all need alt-text. See MOS:ALT for more information.

The article is well-written. I see nothing of concern. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98 Thanks! Alt-text have been added now. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:08, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (8/17/25)

Sources appear to be formatted properly. I ran a bot to standardize the dates for you. I also added a link for History Channel to source no. 16.

Spot check:

  • No. 3 – Checks out.
  • No. 8 – Checks out.
  • No. 11 – Unable to verify as it's a book; not a problem.
  • No. 15 – Archive for no. 15 does not load; as no. 15 requires a subscription, it's unlikely it will be able to archive. I would correct this, but it is not a requirement for GA.
  • No. 18 – Checks out.

Source review passes. GA passes. Good job! 😃 Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:07, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Game_board