Talk:Frithegod/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: I'ma editor2022 (talk · contribs) 18:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Introduction

Hello🙋‍♂️! I'll be reviewing this article to see if it complies with tthe GA criteria. The process of reviewing the article may take several days (although unlikely). Remember when replying or commenting pls @ or ping me , as I probably won't be checking every hour. Or, alternatively, you can always chat on my talk page.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct:

   Minor issues

• This sentence needs another comma after "Rose Graham"
  • I don't know why you're linking in this manner. It's not taking me to a specific sentence, if that is your goal. This just makes it harder for me to find the sentence you want fixed, as I'm having to look at the actual wikitext rather than read the review page directly. Comma added. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• In this sentence, it should read, "life of a particular saint was given by..." instead of "is"
  • The advice is still being given, as the written work still exists and still says that. The operative guideline is MOS:TENSE, where we write about things that still exist like Alcuin's works. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Ok, thank you for explaining that. — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 21:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC) — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 21:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• It should be linking you to be a specific sentence, but it appears it's not. It's probably becuase someone edited the page after I linked the sentence (next time i'll link it to a permanent link version, and see if that works). Thank you for fixing the sentence regardless. — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 21:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC) — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 21:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

* This sentence should say "where he said that prose lines were meant to be read..." instead of "lives"

• • No, "lives" is correct here. We're talking about a genre of writing - "lives of saints". Ealdgyth (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Ok, actually you would be correct. Didn't read that properly. I'll cross that out. But please remember to ping me when commenting. —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 20:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

* " After Oda's death he likely returned to the Continent." should be clarified and "Continent" should be undercase.

• • No sure what you mean by "clarified" here but decapitalized. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  • @Ealdgyth: What I meant was that it should probably say what actual country (e.g England, Francia, whatever) he returned to, (as "continent" is a very broad statement, especially since the sources state what country he "returned" to) but as it is a minor issue, it isn't necessary to revise that. 🙂 — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 21:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

1. B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Conforms to stated guidlines.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   All references conform to guidlines.

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   All citations and references appear to be published and reliable, and most are secondary sources.

   C. It contains no original research:

   No original research found, although This part of the paragraph only have 1 citations, and references dosen't seem to support an substantial amount of the text, leaving possible room for original research.

   As I explained at my talk page - the relevant point is WP:CITEDENSE, which explains that the usual proceedure when more than one sentence in a row is sourced to the same source, the citation goes on the last sentence and it is presumed to cover the sentences preceeding it also. @I'ma editor2022: Ealdgyth (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

   @Ealdgyth:: I removed a part of the paragraph, as discussed on your talk page. However I left a partial amount here, for some reason not rembered. I'll cross it out anyways. Sorry for the confusion.— I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 18:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   None found. Image found in image had appropriate credits, and no plagiarism was found in text. However, not all sources could be accessed so a tool (Earwig's Copyvio Detecter; results here) was supplementally used.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Addresses main aspects of topics and follows WP:N guidlines.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Complies with guidlines.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Displays viewpoints neutrally, giving due weight to each.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   None seen in revision history as of time of review.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All media have appropriate copyright tags.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   All images are relevant and has captions wichcomplies with WP:CAP.

7. Overall: This article complies with the GA criteria and thus is permitted to hold the GA status.

   Pass or Fail:

I was not sure where we stood on this, I'd been waiting for the review to finish but since it stalled, I've gone ahead and made the corrections (when needed) as above. @I'ma editor2022:. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: Hello! As you can see I have not gotten around to finish this review, but I assuradly i'm going to finsh this review before Tuesday next week or sometime like that (or probably today). But thank you for doing the corrections.

P.S: I haven't stalled the review becuase of corrections needed to be made, it's just that I haven't gone around to do it. :) But thank you for doing it regardless!

— I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 20:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC) — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 20:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)