Talk:Alboin/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 07:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC) I shall be undertaking the review of this article against the Good Article criteria, per its nomination for Good Article status. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 07:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

Preliminary concerns

The article is very cluttered as is, and some of the images seem unnecessary:

• Given that Justinian is only indirectly related to the subject matter of the article, I question the need for his image to be present.
• Similarly, the coins of Justin II are rather irrelevant to the article subject matter. In articles where the is are dearth of images, I can see the tenuous link, but this article has a number of viable pictures and does not really need those that do not specifically bear upon the subject of Alboin.
• There are 4 maps on this page; I would suggest that each be re-evaluated to determine if they all are strictly necessary. Remember, the article is about Alboin not the Lombards or Avars. I would suggest that the third map does not add much to the article in its current form.

Slight overlinking occuring. See WP:OVERLINK. Names/terms should only be linked the first time they appear in the article; similarly well known geographic terms (like Italy) do not need to be wikilinked. I have removed the unnecessary links. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 08:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in improving this article: I greatly appreciate it. Passing to the issues, the overlinking excesses were due to a mistake of mine, which brought me to link the same articles in both the lead and in the sections, as I hadn't considered the lead in the linking. Regarding the other links you judged too generic, in 2 cases I'm not fully convinced: Italy in the Middle Ages and Byzantine army may be specific enough for the topic. As for the others, you're right, they're not really needed.

Passing to the images, you hit my main difficulty, I was afraid there was a dearth of images in the article, so I placed some that have only a tenuous connection to the article. I've removed the Justinian and Justin II images; regarding the maps, I inserted the first because the first section starts with an introduction on the migration to Pannonia and since the migration is the main theme of Alboin's life I thought it was important to put the Lombard migration in context. As for the second, it shows the territory controlled by Alboin while in Pannonia and the bordering kingdoms. As for the third, I judged it useful then as it showed how the equilibrium of power had changed after 567, when the Gepids were destroyed; but I'll see to remove it. As for the last map, I see it as key to understand the changes in Italy brought by Alboin. The conquests visible in that map may have all taken place while Alboin was alive, but since there isn't an universal consensus among scholars regarding the dates of Lombard takeover in southern Italy I decided to be cautious.--Aldux (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No problems. I have made quite a few rewrites to the article, but mostly to sentence meaning and to increase textual flow and readability; I have not removed any information or material. Feel free to undo the unlinking if you think it necessary. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 19:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Main review

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • The article was very ebb and flow - very well written in some parts, then poorly written in others. I have made a number of changes to more poorly worded sentences and sections, but have left untouch the segments that were highly readable.

   b (MoS):

   • Conforms to manual of style. Slight issue with overlinking, but problems resolved.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • Well referenced.

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • Citations are to third party publications. Good array of sources.

   c (OR):

   • No evidence of OR. Historical authorities cited and invoked.

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   • Addresses major aspect of article subject matter.

   b (focused):

   • Remains focused. No digressions.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   • No issues concerning POV evident.

5. It is stable:

   • No edit wars etc.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   • Images are properly tagged and justified. Some superfluous pictures, but those that remain are justifiable and pertinent to article subject matter.

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • Images are accompanied by contextual captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: PASS ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 19:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)