From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Bregowine has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
July 25, 2011 Good article nominee Listed

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bregowine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 07:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 07:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments[edit]

A short well referenced article, so its quick to review.

My only concern is the WP:LEAD, its a short article and an even short lead. The lead is OK as an "introduction", but as a "summary" (it should perform both functions) does it accurately reflect what's in the article? For instance:

  • "Little is known of his origins or his activities as archbishop" - should that be little is known for certain (or similar comments)? The body of the article mentions letters that still exit, as do charters; and there are stories written written after the Norman conquest mention that him, but there are concerns over their reliability/consistency with other records (also, see below).
  • I'm happy to accept that the concerns over reliability/consistency with other records has been addressed in respect of "although he possibly owed his elevation to the Kentish monarch".

Bearing in mind that the article is short, I see little point in insisting that informatation is presented in summary form in both the Lead and the infobox, as well as in the body of the article. So, I'm happy for information such as appointment, successor, feast day, etc, to appear in the infobox rather than the Lead.

Pyrotec (talk) 09:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Oveall summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  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:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    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:
    Not applicable - no images.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Not applicable - no images.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
I've expanded the lead a bit, I will freely admit I suck at writing leads. Is that better? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry for the delay in responding. Yes, it's much better. Pyrotec (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on gaining another GA. Pyrotec (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)