Talk:Æthelstan A/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 13:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I must be getting senile. I remember giving this article a close critical reading some weeks ago, and yet I see I didn't contribute to the peer review. Be that as it may, it will be a pleasure to review for GAN. More after I've re-read. Tim riley talk 13:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just one question before I press the button: I'm sure you've thought of breaking the text up with some images, but if, as I suppose, their absence is because you can't find anything relevant, so be it. Can I say, with good conscience, that this is so? Tim riley talk 14:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is but what do you think of [1]? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? In the absence of Æthelstan A's passport photo that rather fine picture of King Æthelstan will look good on the page, and he's mentioned enough for the inclusion to be relevant. Right, that's my only query out of the way.

Review[edit]

This is a splendid article, making something that promises on the face of it to be as dry as dust (to the layman) into a lively and engrossing study. At first reading I was concerned that there is a reliance on really quite hefty slabs of quotation, but on closer scrutiny I see that apart from those from Æthelstan A himself – which are obviously fair game – there are only two others: a 149-word quote from Simon Keynes and a 70-word one from Mechtild Gretsch. If in due course you take the article to FAC I bet you'll get flak for these two big quotes, but for GA they pass muster, I think.

The top image is a corker, though blurry when viewed at maximum resolution (but who, other than a fussy reviewer is going to do that?) The table is ideal, and I don't see how it could be bettered.

I have no reservations about the prose, accuracy, comprehensiveness, neutrality or sourcing, and so:

Summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
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:
Well illustrated.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
As well as possible for such a recherché topic.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I hope we can look forward to more like this. Tim riley talk 16:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]