Talk:Edmund Ætheling/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 01:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any stage to contribute to this review. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for waiting. In conducting this review, I will:

Provide an assessment using WP:GARC
If this article does not meet the criteria, explain what areas need improvement.
Provide possible solutions that may (or may not) be used to fix these.

Assessment

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.	Websites verify content
	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).	Hard to decide without context
	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.	Images provide good insight into topic
	7. Overall assessment.

Commentary

Comments:

This is a very well-researched article
My main comment when reading this article is that it lacks contextual information, which makes it hard to read. This is particularly true in the lead, which could be fleshed-out by one or two more sentences explaining who the kings were and/or why the two were fleeing, and the births and marriage & death section, where some contextual information regarding the characters, or at least an extra sentence or two to pad out these information-dense paragraphs, is suggested. (This is a bit nebulous as a comment, I know, but I do feel that these two paragraphs are hard to read)
This image: File:Szent_gellért_2.jpg, has a copyright flag (although being almost a thousand years old I'm not sure how it could be copyrighted...)
If possible, would value if a pronounciation key was added after the name, to show how the name would be pronounced. This is not a requirement for GA status but I feel would improve the article's overall quality.

Apart from the short lede, which needs a little more expansion, this article can certainly get to GA status in a short timespan. I will provide a (very-quick, I expect) thorough read-through when the concerns above (image, lede, readability) are resolved. LT910001 (talk) 07:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@LT910001: Thanks for your feedback. To spare myself some work, I'll try to go through these issues now:

I've re-written the lead, which I found a bit entangled myself, but I don't understand what is difficult to read in the Marriage&Death section.
There was no problem with the copyright, the PD template just wasn't filled in properly, which I hope it now is.

Excellent! I'm sure we can both sleep easy tonight (...). LT910001 (talk) 07:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a pronunciation key. Cheers, Alex (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'd say your simple change to the lead makes all the difference. I also note that you've been the primary creator and editor of this article, over only a month. With no outstanding issues I'm promoting this to GA status. Well done! LT910001 (talk) 07:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]