Talk:Æthelwold ætheling/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 06:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC) I'll do this one. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:58, 12 October 2013 (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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	~~on hold for seven days for points to be addressed~~Passed.

Comments

suggest using refbegin refend templates on the Sources to reduce font size Done

Done.

no citation points to Keynes and Lapidge, ~~suggest moving to it to a Further reading section~~

Citations 3 and 6 are to Keynes and Lapidge.

Ah, you are right, I should have been clearer, the links between the Citations section and Sources section don't work.

Is this OK now?

No, link is still broken. I'm not sure why as yet, I use shortened footnotes (substantially easier to work with IMO), I'll have to have a look at how to do it with the citation syntax you are using.

Is the problem that I have not linked the citations and sources? I thought this was OK as some featured articles such as William the Conqueror and Egbert of Wessex (both articles of the day) do not appear to link them. If you think they should be linked, can you point me to the best format? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(just skimming through) Fixed the problem. "ref=harv" only makes sense, when templates like "sfn" or "efn" are also used - otherwise you can disable the function by omitting the parameter or disabling it with "ref=" in the cite-template. GermanJoe (talk) 10:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting this. The source must have been copied from an article which was using Harvard linking (if that is the correct term). Dudley Miles (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is overlinked Done

Done

The coin image needs a better caption and the copyright status does not look right. The coin itself is very old, but the photograph of the coin is what should be addressed by the licensing etc. Can you talk me through this please?

I have provided fuller details in the caption and copyright status, but the status is probably still not satisfactory. I was trying to think of a posssible image and a coin seemed the only possibility. The BM report on the Silverdale Hoard at [1] said that it included one of his coins, but the only image I could find was from the PA in a Daily Mail article at [2]. Some images of Anglo-Saxon coins in Wikimedia such as [3] are copied from modern books, so I concluded that this image should be acceptable. I have since found reproductions in a 1985 academic article at [4]. Would an image copied from this article be acceptable or should the image be deleted? I might be able to find an image which is out of copyright in the sources cited in the article, but most of them look too old to have photos.

I fear the image is not ok, I will ping an image guru for a second opinion. User:Nikkimaria, could you have a look at the image here for me, please?

Hey both. Peacemaker is correct that we require appropriate licensing for both the photo and the object itself; even in cases where freedom of panorama applies, it's the photo licensing that is required. Since this particular image is a press photo, it will probably need to be deleted. In terms of replacing it, I have a suggestion: the British Museum has photos of that coin and indeed seems to have most of the hoard in its collection; would it be possible to seek their permission to use such an image? The other image you mention, incidentally, is sourced to a modern book that credits the museum for that particular image. You could also investigate Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/Photos_requested, although that page is not very active - if no one responds try asking previous respondents directly. Hopefully the coin is publicly displayed. If all else fails, you might need to use a more general image instead, or even no image at all, although that would be less than ideal. Hope that helps! Nikkimaria (talk) 05:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC) Actually, looking again, the BM site attributes the coin to a different reign? You might want to verify...Nikkimaria (talk) 05:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look Nikki. I suggest the image be removed, and a military person infobox or appropriate map added. It is not ideal I know, but it needs something visual. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the image. Thanks to Nikkimaria for pointing out the misattribution. Looking closely, the coin has Harthacnut on it, not Alwaldus, and has been wrongly labelled by the PA. I have found a map of the right time and added it as an image. Does this look OK now? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the lead and background need to provide more information on the time period in which he lived

I will work on this.

it is not clear why marrying the unnamed nun would be "politically important" Done

I have found a source which clarifies the reasoning. Does this look OK now?

Yep.

single sentence paragraph needs to be amalgamated into the para above Done

Done.

Review completed, on hold for seven days for the above to be addressed. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. This is my first attempt at getting an article to good article status, so any help where I am not addressing issues correctly will be appreciated. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just the lead to fix now. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hope to deal with this in the next couple of days. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on an excellent article. Passing. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]