Talk:Ecgbert of York/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: ThaddeusB (talk · contribs) 05:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Initial comments: I will be doing this review.  My initial read of the article indicates it is close to GA status.  However, the prose is confusing at points.  Rather than list all the points at once, I think it would be productive for you to give it a careful read/copyedit.  That will probably fix many of the issues, as I find it is hard to see ones own errors right after working on an article, but they easier to spot after some time away from the article (looks like its been a week or so since the improvements were completed).  I'm confident we can get this to GA status with a little effort. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I took a quick hack at the prose. It definitely seems good enough for GA in my judgement. Do you think it still needs more? --John (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will proceed with specific suggestions tomorrow. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Specifics

 * "Archbishop" section
 * Section needs some sort of introductory material for flow / explanation of purpose.  I assumed it would be a section about his career as archbishop, but it is almost all "passive" material - i.e. stuff done by others while he was archbishop.  Maybe rename the section "Issues faced as archbishop" or something similar?
 * Is it the case that not much is known about his actual actions? The article certainly doesn't have much to say. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, not much is known about what he did. Welcome to the world of history in the 6th through 9th centuries. I've reorderd things a bit .. so hopefully there is a bit more sense in the information. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I figured as much, but its also good to double check. :) Prose organization is much improved. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "As a child, Alcuin was given to Ecgbert, and was educated at the school at York that Ecgbert founded"
 * Can you clarify "given"? It's kind of a strange way to refer to a person and I'm not sure what it means.  The sentence also seems misplaced - it doesn't have anything to do with the rest of the paragraph (or Egbert's archbishopric) as near as I can tell --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * He was placed with the church under Ecgbert - I've changed the wording. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Possible additional source:
 * This source seems to contain some good info not in the article. Can you take a look and let me know what you think? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason I didn't use that source is that it's actually from 1892 - the edition you're linking to is a reprint of the original edition. See here on Worldcat where the original information is given. The author is Stopford Brooke (chaplain), and much of literary history has changed a lot in the last 120 years. Many manuscripts and attributions that were accepted in the 1880s are no longer accepted by scholars. In short, it's outdated. Its safer to rely on the ODNB article and the various other modern sources used. As an example - it's no longer thought that Wilfrid started the school at York, which is what Brooke is arguing. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Very good, if you ruled it an insufficient reliable source (due to age) that is fine by me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Coins?
 * I think it is worth mentioning that coins have been found bearing his name in the legacy section. (Let me know if you think I am mistaken.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Secondary source for that information? It's not that unusual, honestly. And it's not mentioned in any modern secondary source I've seen... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This looks pretty good. It also contains some other info about Eghbert - might be a couple minor points of note not already mentioned.  While coins are probably not uncommon, these coins would at least emphasize the shared political power with his brother I'd think. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of that is already mentioned, except the coinage bits. In all honestly, it's probably not strictly necessary to include this bit about the coinage for GA status - the Good article criteria just say "major aspects" not that it needs to cover "every major fact or detail" but I'll try to work it in. We already discuss that Ecgbert and his brother worked together, and the information on the royal succession is outside the scope of this article ... but give me a bit (I gotta go put my mother into bed, she's elderly and needs help) and I'll work the coinage infomation in. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. I realize it is probably not strictly necessary to mention the coins, but I like to be thorough.  A sentence or two is sufficient - not looking for a repeat of the author's entire coinage description (it is a book about coins after all).  Incidentally, an image of said coin would be nice to have - it's a pretty neat coin IMO.  It looks like coin images are copyrightable since they are technically 3D objects (photos of 2d objects are not copyrightable).  It would probably be easy to get someone who took a photo to license it if you are so inclined.  (Obviously, this is not a requirement for GA, just a generally suggestion for improvement to article.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Info is added. The coin image was in the article at one point, but it failed fair use and got removed. Talk:Ecgbert (bishop). I have hopes of eventually finding another image but... I am American and most of the coins are in England, amazingly enough. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the best bet (IMO) would be the email people who have posted images on the web and ask for permission (there are instructions on commons on what to say). I've had pretty good success getting images that way. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Formal review
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:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * Offline sources accepted in good faith
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * Referencing is quite exceptional
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * Article doesn't say a lot, but that is because little is known about the subject
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * My independent research indicates article accurately reflects what sources say about the subject, nothing less, nothing more.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Not applicable - no images
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * No images because none can easily be obtained
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Very nice article overall. Thanks for the speedy responses to my requests. I am passing it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * No images because none can easily be obtained
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Very nice article overall. Thanks for the speedy responses to my requests. I am passing it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)