Talk:Feologild/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 14:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. It's a short article (would probably be one of the shortest GAs, so I'm going to review it immediately. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The existing prose is fine, but I think some additional prose is required (see below). I will do a final prose check after the rest of the review is complete. I have gone through and made some prose edits including to the new material. Please let me know if there are any changes you would like to discuss. Pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues here, pass.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass, references are fine.
	2b. 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).	Sources are reliable, no issues.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass, no OR found.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Pass - no issues found.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	While I know that this article contains pretty much all the information we have about ol' Feologild, a GA should provide a complete summary of a topic for someone who knows nothing about it - a first-time reader. I think a little context would be helpful here - what was the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time, what was the political situation in England, who preceded and succeeded him. A little historiography might be needed to explain why so little is known of Feologild. I'm not thinking anything enormous - just a sentence or two on each of the questions mentioned could be enough. This would provide necessary information for anyone coming to the article without knowing anything about English history. Issue addressed. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues, pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars, no other stability issues, pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No images, so N/A.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No images. I can certainly understand why this might not have any suitable images, but I think it's worth considering a few. Do you think File:Liste archevêques Canterbury.jpg or File:Map Egbert of Wessex.svg would add to the article? Issue addressed - pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

@Ealdgyth: interesting short article! We can definitely get this to GA - just one major issue and one minor one (images). Ganesha811 (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get to this tomorrow - today is hubby's day off from work so involved editing isn't happening. Thanks for the review! Ealdgyth (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Ganesha811 (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganesha811: how does that work for you? Ealdgyth (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: the expansion looks good! I've made prose edits and passed on prose. Any thoughts on the images I mentioned? That's the last thing left. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added the list picture. Also added a bit about the Anglican Church considering him an archbishop - since the church isn't just redirecting their "official" list of archbishops to the list on wikipedia any more... How's that look to you? Ealdgyth (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like everything! This article passes GA. Congrats to you and anyone else who worked on it. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]