Olaf Guthfrithson has been listed as one of the History 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. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 19, 2016. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a skeleton found at Auldhame in 2005 may belong to Olaf Guthfrithson, king of Dublin and Northumbria? |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
references moved to the article page... Tbarron
Hi - While I'm happy to see the Irish rendering of this guy's name, I'm a little taken aback, because I've never seen it before, and in books I've seen he would be either Anlaf or Olaf Guthfrithson or Guthricsson. Now of course there weren't any set spellings for any of these names, but it is possible we can have a set of alternatives, not too long, in the header somewhere so we can be sure what we're talking about and be able to relate this to stuff we might read off Wikipedia? I know how touchy a subject this can be for people - am not bothered about which one is chosen for the article name, just want fellow readers not to be scratching their heads when they arrive. This goes for this guy's relatives too. Cheers. Stevebritgimp (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mr rnddude (talk · contribs) 01:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello there, I will be taking on the review for this article. Expect a full review on the article by tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | I have reviewed the prose changes and information changes in the article and have found no other outstanding issues. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The article is neatly laid out and there are no real concerns about the layout of the article. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | All issues resolved.
There are two sources that aren't used in the article; 1. Hudson (2005), mentioned under sources but does not appear to be cited in the text of the article, by contrast Hudson (2004) is both mentioned and cited. 2. Smyth (1975), mentioned under sources but does not appear to be cited in the text of the article. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | This section has been rectified, all rectified areas will be devoid of comment to facilitate ease of use. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | I would have access to Downham, however, Cannon, Harper-Bill and Forte et, al. are sufficient to suggest that there are no original research issues. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig's copyvio detector rates it unlikely that there are any copyvio's but isn't too confident about it a 8.3%. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Main aspects are neatly and summarily covered. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | The article doesn't stray from the subject of the article, or it's relevant companions, at any time. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | The article is free from bias, each viewpoint is given equal weight as none of the sources appear inherently unreliable, merely, in mild disagreement. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | The article has been edited few times since its nomination and there are no outstanding cncerns on the article's talk page. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | The lack of images in this instance is acceptable. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | The lack of images in this instance is acceptable. | |
7. Overall assessment. | This article meets the GA criteria, it is neatly laid out, well focussed and referenced and has no issues with copyright vio or original research. As such, and in conjunction with the other criteria, it meets GA. |
I will be using the above table for my review, my comments will be in the table. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)