Talk:Ælfhere, Ealdorman of Mercia

Ælfhere, Ealdorman of Mercia was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 31, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms Low‑importance

	Anglo-Saxon England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anglo-Saxon KingdomsWikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsTemplate:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsAnglo-Saxon Kingdoms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments:

You already know this, but the lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD to cover every major point that is mentioned in the body of the article.

Is there any sort of image available for use, even a non-free one? (Since he's long dead). What about a contemporary drawing or a modern illustration?
This article is very short, which isn't a bad thing, as it is the type of article "Good Articles" was designed for, but I still think that it could be a little broader in coverage. Since the article is so short, a little background or history would be useful and perhaps some stating the obvious. For example, nowhere in the article does it explain what an ealdorman is, what he does and what sort of prestige this position held. In a longer article, it might suffice to have just a wikilink, but in an article this small, it's difficult to gauge his notability without it. In fact, a section putting this entire section in context would be very helpful. A somewhat extreme example is Edoardo Mangiarotti, where his biography is beefed up a bit with a very brief section on the history of fencing. Personally I think that it's somewhat unnecessary for an article of that size, but if Ælfhere were a fencer, I would recommend something like that, if you catch my drift. The article as a whole needs some form of context (history, contemporary events, stating the obvious etc. etc.), because right now it makes very little sense to someone not already familiar with the subject matter.
I don't think the first listed reference is leading where it is supposed to.

For now, I am going to fail the article, as I feel that it would benefit from time spent on expansion, contextualization and making the article more accessible for the layman. I suggest a project-specific peer review, or at least getting someone completely unfamiliar with the subject to read the article and see if they understand fully, and remedying that which confuses them. What you have here is very good, but it's not enough for someone unfamiliar with the topic. If you feel that this review is in error, it may be taken to good article review. Thank you for your work thusfar. Cheers, CP 23:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking up the broken link. It seems that I need to double-check the PASE references from recent articles I've done. I wasn't paying attention to how the URL changes - or rather doesn't change - when links are clicked. Silly me. I'll consider expanding the lead, but even as-is it covers the main points of the article without getting bogged down in the minutiae.

I'm ambivalent at best when it comes to the constant appeals at GAR/FAR for ever more context to be added to articles. That seems to defeat the entire purpose of indicating that there is an article on e.g. ealdorman, whether that's the wikilink we see here or whatever means is used in print editions of Wikipedia. If more context is needed, then seems to me that it is better to create articles that cover the relevant area and point the reader at those, even if the subjects are narrow as Anti-monastic reaction in the reign of Edward the Martyr, Rise and fall of great noble families in 10th century Anglo-Saxon England, and Institutions of the Anglo-Saxon Kingdom of England undoubtedly are. If linking to sections of other articles were more reliable, or partial transclusion obvious, and I have no idea if it's even possible let alone how to do it, then those might be a solution. Linking or transclusion reduces the chances of bit rot as it means that the material only has to be written and maintained in one place.

Anyway, thanks for the comments. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I'd agree, however I just feel that in an article this short, it would help. Also, it would really help aid in the understanding of this topic, which is somewhat complex to those who are unfamiliar with the subject. It's a difficult read, in my opinion, for those not familiar with the subject. The contextualization was just my suggestion, though I'm sure someone more familiar with the subject matter could up with a better method of making this article more accessible. Cheers, CP 18:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]