Talk:Hemming's Cartulary/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

After a quick read through, this article has all the appearances of being a GA. I will now do a detailed section by section review. Pyrotec (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only covering "problems" at this point (you've done these GANs before):

Themes and contents -

The fourth paragraph comments on the Prefatio and the Enucleatio. We know about the Enucleatio since it has introduced previously in Hemming's cartulary proper; but, unless I've missed it, there is no prior introduction to the Prefatio (its not in my latin dictionary, so I'm not going to pretend that I know what it is).

Second paragraph introduces the block quote with "Hemming's introduction to his work (Prefatio) claims that it was produced to Wulfstan's successors..." which seems to pretty much introduce the Prefatio and explain what it is. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. You are correct, it is there and it was obviously there earlier - I just did not see it. I also used "find" and only got one hit; but I get two now. Pyrotec (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrotec (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
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:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
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:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quality of the article. I'm awarding GA status. Pyrotec (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]