Talk:Edmund the Martyr/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 16:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments

Sorry for the delay, I've now had a quick read of the article and it appears to be at or about GA-level. I'm now going to work my way through the article in more depth. Pyrotec (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• King of the East Angles & Memorial coinage -

• These two sections appear to be compliant.
• Note: Refs 2 & 3 are the same so ref 2 could have been "called" twice as per ref 37.

sorted. Hel-hama (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Veneration -
  • Saint Edmund the Martyr -

• Reference is made to "Bury". Presummably that is not Bury but Bury St Edmunds? Note: later, in the next paragraph, reference is made to Bury St Edmunds.

sorted. Hel-hama (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Otherwise, OK.

• The Passio Santi Eadmundi & Mediaeval hagiographies and legends -

• These two sections appear to be compliant.

• Banner, Patronages & St Edmund in the arts -

• Again a minor point, there is mention of Hunstanton and the first occurrence is wikilinked, but Old Hunstanton is probably a better link (although neither of them possibly existed at the time of Edmund).

sorted. Hel-hama (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• WP:Lead -

• This appear to be compliant.

Pyrotec (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

An informative article on this historical character.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

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

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced and cited.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced and cited.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm happy to be able to award this article GA-status. It appears to be quite a comprehensive article and could make WP:FAC in due course, but I would recommend that it be submitted to WP:PR to gain a wider view. Pyrotec (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Pyrotec! Hel-hama (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)