Talk:Edmund the Martyr/GA1

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

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


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

Initial comments
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * WP:Lead -
 * This appear to be compliant.

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

Overall summary
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:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) 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)
 * Thanks, Pyrotec! Hel-hama (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)