Talk:Felix of Burgundy/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk) 08:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I've given this article a first read-through, and will give it a second perusal this weekend. I have corrected three typos, but please check that you are happy with my changes. Tim riley (talk) 08:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Later. A few minor points before I continue with the review:
 * Lead
 * It isn't obvious to me that "bishop" needs a blue link while "saint" and "priest" do not.
 * Link for 'bishop' removed. --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Frankish" and "Burgundy" are not blue linked here but are so linked in the main text; they should be linked here, too.
 * Links moved. --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Background and early life
 * "Wuffing ruling dynasty" but later "the Wuffings dynasty" – singular or plural?
 * Change made to 'Wuffingas'. --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Columbanus' disciples, (who..." – comma needed here?
 * Fixed. --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Higham notes various…" – marathon sentence – could do with being split in two.
 * Fixed.--Amitchell125 (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "may have originated from" – superfluous "from" here.
 * Fixed.--Amitchell125 (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Arrival in the kingdom of the East Angles
 * "Later sources tend to different from the version" – "tend to differ"?
 * Fixed. --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Death and veneration
 * "desecrated" – blue link needed here?
 * Link removed. --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "and maden… … the halige kirke" – why in bold?
 * Error fixed. --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * References
 * It is most unusual to put the book titles in both the references and sources sections; usually in the references section they are given just as, e.g., "Lapidge, p. 2", "Swanton, p. 26" and so on, which seems to me easier on your readers' eyes.
 * I have followed the style used by other editors, e.g. User:Ealdgyth and provided shortened versions of the publication cited instead of the name of the publication in full. Hope this helps. --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not arguing with Ealdgyth!

If you will address these points, I shall then press on. Tim riley (talk) 09:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added an online link to the ODNB article; if you wish to retain it, you should drop the Matthew entry in the sources section.

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Very nicely done. Not for the first time, Wikipedia leaves the other online reference works at the post. Congratulations! Tim riley (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Tim. --Amitchell125 (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)