Talk:Wehha of East Anglia/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 11:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC) I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: Two found, one fixed, I tagged the other as it is unclear what the target should be.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Second disambiguation sorted. Hel-hama (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Reasonably well-written and sufficiently compliant with the manual of style.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   What makes {http://www.kmatthews.org.uk/history/anglian_collection.html} a reliable source?

I agree, source removed. Hel-hama (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Consistency: Book titles are given inconsistently, e.g. The Age of Sutton Hoo and Age of Sutton Hoo; Newton, The Origins of Beowulf , p. 105. needs bibliographic details in the Sources section; The Earliest English Kings and Kings; Palgrave, The Rise and Progress of the English Commonwealth needs bibliographic details in Sources; Rainbird Clarke, R. or Clarke - be consistent; Fitzpatrick-Matthews, Keith (2006). "The ‘Anglian Collection’ of Royal Genealogies". Keith’s History Pages. is listed twice in sources.

   All in all this is a bit of a muddle and needs sorting out.

All sorted. Hel-hama (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This is the difficult part. Can an article based upon a few scraps and passing mentions ever be considered broad in its coverage? I shall think on this. On due consideration, this article summarises the few sources about Wehha very well. It is a broad as it can be.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   neutral

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   stable

4. 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):

   licensed and captioned

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am happy to pass this as a good article, congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)