Talk:Olaf Guthfrithson/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mr rnddude (talk · contribs) 01:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I will be taking on the review for this article. Expect a full review on the article by tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2016 (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.	I have reviewed the prose changes and information changes in the article and have found no other outstanding issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article is neatly laid out and there are no real concerns about the layout of the article.
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.	All issues resolved. There are two sources that aren't used in the article; 1. Hudson (2005), mentioned under sources but does not appear to be cited in the text of the article, by contrast Hudson (2004) is both mentioned and cited. 2. Smyth (1975), mentioned under sources but does not appear to be cited in the text of the article.
	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).	This section has been rectified, all rectified areas will be devoid of comment to facilitate ease of use.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I would have access to Downham, however, Cannon, Harper-Bill and Forte et, al. are sufficient to suggest that there are no original research issues.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig's copyvio detector rates it unlikely that there are any copyvio's but isn't too confident about it a 8.3%. ~~I'll be looking at a couple sources to confirm.~~ I've looked at a couple sources, generally clean paraphrasing is employed, there is a little close paraphrasing, but, more out of necessity than will.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Main aspects are neatly and summarily covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article doesn't stray from the subject of the article, or it's relevant companions, at any time.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article is free from bias, each viewpoint is given equal weight as none of the sources appear inherently unreliable, merely, in mild disagreement.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article has been edited few times since its nomination and there are no outstanding cncerns on the article's talk page.
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.	The lack of images in this instance is acceptable.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The lack of images in this instance is acceptable.
	7. Overall assessment.	This article meets the GA criteria, it is neatly laid out, well focussed and referenced and has no issues with copyright vio or original research. As such, and in conjunction with the other criteria, it meets GA.

I will be using the above table for my review, my comments will be in the table. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retroplum, I have completed my initial review of the article and am willing to place it on hold for the issues to be rectified. I have more serious concerns about 2b and 2c regarding the work, they'll be the primary thing to address. Feel free to ping me if you need anything. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mr rnddude: and thanks for the review. Apologies for the lateness but I've been away for a few weeks and I've only just noticed your review. I should, I hope, be able to do some editing and address some or all of your concerns in the next few days. Retroplum (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I think I have addressed everything with regards to 1a but a few explanatory comments might be helpful. I included the sources section (aka the background section) mostly because there are a few statements in the text and in the secondary sources which are "probable" or "possible" and it might be helpful for the reader to understand why that is the case, although its very easy to go over the top and give too much information. I've kept the section but I've done as you suggested and moved it to the bottom. An analysis of the sources is, after all, not the point of the article. Everything else in 1a seems straightforward enough and I've made the necessary changes.

Now to deal with the tricker issues. I think the main issue is probably incorrect sourcing. All the conclusions drawn are - I think - in one or other of the secondary sources listed but I've had issues with over-referencing in the past so in this article I tried to keep it down to a minimum, which inevitably has lead to some statements not being supported by the given citations. It's not a particularly long article though, so I should be able to go through paragraph by paragraph and check the referencing and such. Retroplum (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have now updated the pdf link as per 2a. Thanks for finding where it had been moved to. Retroplum (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I've now corrected the citing of Thrope, Murphy and Stevenson. However, I'm not quite sure what to do about the others. They are not published sources but online compilations of different translations of original manuscript sources. These online sources have multiple compilers, and are based on works by multiple translators, and have additional corrections and revisions by other editors. As such I'm not sure how to reference those sources in a way which is better than how they are now, but if you have any suggestions let me know. For now, I'll leave them as they are and move on to some of the other issues. Retroplum (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, I'll take a look at it as soon as I can. Having a busy week. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, having looked at it I think it might be best to just remove the sources section. There are some referencing issues and it doesn't add a great deal. Retroplum (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Up to your discretion, it's not doing any harm but it's also not a vital component. Many articles don't discuss the actual sources at least not up to A or FA class. Some do, some don't. It's a small component, if it's going to have sourcing issues then I'd recommend removing it. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude: Ok, I've now went through the whole article adding citations for previously uncited statements and conclusions. In a couple of places I've removed statements which are not properly supported by the sources, although I've tried to keep textual changes to a minimum since you've already reviewed the article. If you want further guidance as to what changes I've made and why just let me know. I think I've (hopefully) dealt with all the issues you brought up so if you could take a look when you get the chance we can see what issues are outstanding. Thanks. Retroplum (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retroplum, will do, I'll have a look at it either tonight or tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retroplum, apologies for the delay, I have updated much of my table, there are two minor issues under 2a and a couple things I'll need to go through. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude: No worries. Those two sources were previously cited but are no longer so I've removed them. Retroplum (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simples, this passes GA in that case. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]