Talk:Felix of Burgundy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk) 08:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I've given this article a first read-through, and will give it a second perusal this weekend. I have corrected three typos, but please check that you are happy with my changes. Tim riley (talk) 08:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Later. A few minor points before I continue with the review:

• Lead
  • It isn't obvious to me that "bishop" needs a blue link while "saint" and "priest" do not.

Link for 'bishop' removed. --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• • "Frankish" and "Burgundy" are not blue linked here but are so linked in the main text; they should be linked here, too.

Links moved. --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Background and early life
  • "Wuffing ruling dynasty" but later "the Wuffings dynasty" – singular or plural?

Change made to 'Wuffingas'. --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• • "Columbanus' disciples, (who..." – comma needed here?

Fixed. --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• • "Higham notes various…" – marathon sentence – could do with being split in two.

Fixed.--Amitchell125 (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• • "may have originated from" – superfluous "from" here.

Fixed.--Amitchell125 (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Arrival in the kingdom of the East Angles
  • "Later sources tend to different from the version" – "tend to differ"?

Fixed. --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Death and veneration
  • "desecrated" – blue link needed here?

Link removed. --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• • "and maden… … the halige kirke" – why in bold?

Error fixed. --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• References
  • It is most unusual to put the book titles in both the references and sources sections; usually in the references section they are given just as, e.g., "Lapidge, p. 2", "Swanton, p. 26" and so on, which seems to me easier on your readers' eyes.

I have followed the style used by other editors, e.g. User:Ealdgyth and provided shortened versions of the publication cited instead of the name of the publication in full. Hope this helps. --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not arguing with Ealdgyth!

• • I have added an online link to the ODNB article; if you wish to retain it, you should drop the Matthew entry in the sources section.

If you will address these points, I shall then press on. Tim riley (talk) 09:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced

   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:

   Well illustrated

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

   Well illustrated

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Very nicely done. Not for the first time, Wikipedia leaves the other online reference works at the post. Congratulations! Tim riley (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Cheers, Tim. --Amitchell125 (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)