From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 21:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

1. Well written?: Very well-written. Clear, concise prose.
2. Factually accurate?: Sources look good. I have no problems here.
3. Broad in coverage?: Well, it's a bit short, but given when he lived, I could believe this contains most of the relevant, known information about him. I may get criticised for this, but I'm giving this a pass.
4. Neutral point of view?: No issues
5. Article stability?: No issues
6. Images?: This is one of those "where possible" requirements; illustrations for people from this period can be a bit difficult, and sometimes impossible, so I don't see this as a blocker.

While the shortness of the article might draw comment, I do consider this a well-written, well-researched piece, deserving GA status.  Pass