Talk:Æthelwold of East Anglia/GA1

Latest comment: 13 years ago by Eisfbnore in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Eisfbnore talk 17:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
I will review. --Eisfbnore talk 17:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry for the slight delay of the review; I'm in the midst of my Easter holidays and therefore only occasionally checking in on the wiki. Overall, this seems to be a very well-written and properly sourced article with few things I can put my finger on, so this will be a short and quick review.

Comments
  • I'm not sure whether it's a good idea to have the ancestry table in the middle of the article. I would recommend moving it down between See also and Notes – or simply leaving it out, since the WP:SEEALSO link to Wuffing (I removed the redirect, for instance) provides almost the same information one click away. (ancestral tree removed - --Amitchell125 (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC) )Reply
  • The sentence "If the legend that Botolph came to East Anglia through contact with the daughters of Anna at Faremoutiers Abbey is true, he may have received Celtic teaching there, since the abbess Burgundofara was reputedly instructed by Saint Columbanus, the Irish missionary to Burgundy." is a bit WP:SYNTH. Please attribute the synthesis to historian Steven Plunkett (I guess). (offending part of the section made into a comment, it hasn't a source and I don't think as it stands it contributes to the article. - --Amitchell125 (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC) )Reply
  • Sources look fine, although the Whitelock piece ought IMHO to be formatted with a suitable citation template. I've been bold and used the {{cite}} a.k.a {{citation}} template to format this source. The advantage with that template is that it can be used for any type of source (book, journal, press release, encyclopedia, web entry or whatever), as it automatically identifies what kind of source it deals with through the parameters used in the template. The disadvantage with it, is that it uses commas rather than full stops to separate the various citation details (author, title, publisher, pub year, etc.), and is thus inconsistent with the more specific citation templates, like {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}} which uses only full stops. All the other book sources in this article uses {{cite book}}, so I'd recommend using that one for the Whitelock piece as well (I can't do it since I don't have a copy of the source). --Eisfbnore talk 16:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC) ({{cite journal}} used - --Amitchell125 (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC) )Reply

--Eisfbnore talk 17:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Additional comments
  • A bit of nitpicking: Since the book titles in the citations usually are shortened, I'm puzzled by the fact that Barbara Yorke's book Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England is referred to by its full title rather than simply Kings and Kingdoms (or something like that) in the citations. (alteration made to refs - --Amitchell125 (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC))Reply

--Eisfbnore talk 18:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Good, then (almost) everything seems to have been seen to. The only issue left now, is the synthesis that I mentioned in my fourth bulleted comment. Good job so far. --Eisfbnore talk 16:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

The problematic sentence is now gone, so I am very happy to list this article as a GA. Nicely done, Eisfbnore talk 16:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply