Talk:Felix of Burgundy/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Tim riley (talk) 08:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I've given this article a first read-through, and will give it a second perusal this weekend. I have corrected three typos, but please check that you are happy with my changes. Tim riley (talk) 08:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Later. A few minor points before I continue with the review:
- Lead
- It isn't obvious to me that "bishop" needs a blue link while "saint" and "priest" do not.
- Link for 'bishop' removed. --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- "Frankish" and "Burgundy" are not blue linked here but are so linked in the main text; they should be linked here, too.
- Links moved. --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Background and early life
- "Wuffing ruling dynasty" but later "the Wuffings dynasty" – singular or plural?
- Change made to 'Wuffingas'. --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- "Columbanus' disciples, (who..." – comma needed here?
- Fixed. --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- "Higham notes various…" – marathon sentence – could do with being split in two.
- Fixed.--Amitchell125 (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- "may have originated from" – superfluous "from" here.
- Fixed.--Amitchell125 (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Arrival in the kingdom of the East Angles
- "Later sources tend to different from the version" – "tend to differ"?
- Fixed. --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Death and veneration
- "desecrated" – blue link needed here?
- Link removed. --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- "and maden… … the halige kirke" – why in bold?
- Error fixed. --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- References
- It is most unusual to put the book titles in both the references and sources sections; usually in the references section they are given just as, e.g., "Lapidge, p. 2", "Swanton, p. 26" and so on, which seems to me easier on your readers' eyes.
- I have followed the style used by other editors, e.g. User:Ealdgyth and provided shortened versions of the publication cited instead of the name of the publication in full. Hope this helps. --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not arguing with Ealdgyth!
- I have followed the style used by other editors, e.g. User:Ealdgyth and provided shortened versions of the publication cited instead of the name of the publication in full. Hope this helps. --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have added an online link to the ODNB article; if you wish to retain it, you should drop the Matthew entry in the sources section.
If you will address these points, I shall then press on. Tim riley (talk) 09:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Overall summary
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- Well referenced
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Well referenced
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Well illustrated
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Well illustrated
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Very nicely done. Not for the first time, Wikipedia leaves the other online reference works at the post. Congratulations! Tim riley (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Cheers, Tim. --Amitchell125 (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)