Jump to content

Talk:Edmund the Martyr/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

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

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

Initial comments

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • This appear to be compliant.

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

Overall summary

[edit]

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)[reply]

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