Talk:Olaf Guthfrithson/GA1

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

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)

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)
 * , I have completed my initial review of the article and am willing to place it on hold for the issues to be rectified. I have more serious concerns about 2b and 2c regarding the work, they'll be the primary thing to address. Feel free to ping me if you need anything. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for the review. Apologies for the lateness but I've been away for a few weeks and I've only just noticed your review. I should, I hope, be able to do some editing and address some or all of your concerns in the next few days. Retroplum (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, I think I have addressed everything with regards to 1a but a few explanatory comments might be helpful. I included the sources section (aka the background section) mostly because there are a few statements in the text and in the secondary sources which are "probable" or "possible" and it might be helpful for the reader to understand why that is the case, although its very easy to go over the top and give too much information. I've kept the section but I've done as you suggested and moved it to the bottom. An analysis of the sources is, after all, not the point of the article. Everything else in 1a seems straightforward enough and I've made the necessary changes.
 * Now to deal with the tricker issues. I think the main issue is probably incorrect sourcing. All the conclusions drawn are - I think - in one or other of the secondary sources listed but I've had issues with over-referencing in the past so in this article I tried to keep it down to a minimum, which inevitably has lead to some statements not being supported by the given citations. It's not a particularly long article though, so I should be able to go through paragraph by paragraph and check the referencing and such. Retroplum (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have now updated the pdf link as per 2a. Thanks for finding where it had been moved to. Retroplum (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And I've now corrected the citing of Thrope, Murphy and Stevenson. However, I'm not quite sure what to do about the others. They are not published sources but online compilations of different translations of original manuscript sources. These online sources have multiple compilers, and are based on works by multiple translators, and have additional corrections and revisions by other editors. As such I'm not sure how to reference those sources in a way which is better than how they are now, but if you have any suggestions let me know. For now, I'll leave them as they are and move on to some of the other issues. Retroplum (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Understood, I'll take a look at it as soon as I can. Having a busy week. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, having looked at it I think it might be best to just remove the sources section. There are some referencing issues and it doesn't add a great deal. Retroplum (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Up to your discretion, it's not doing any harm but it's also not a vital component. Many articles don't discuss the actual sources at least not up to A or FA class. Some do, some don't. It's a small component, if it's going to have sourcing issues then I'd recommend removing it. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've now went through the whole article adding citations for previously uncited statements and conclusions. In a couple of places I've removed statements which are not properly supported by the sources, although I've tried to keep textual changes to a minimum since you've already reviewed the article. If you want further guidance as to what changes I've made and why just let me know. I think I've (hopefully) dealt with all the issues you brought up so if you could take a look when you get the chance we can see what issues are outstanding. Thanks. Retroplum (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , will do, I'll have a look at it either tonight or tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , apologies for the delay, I have updated much of my table, there are two minor issues under 2a and a couple things I'll need to go through. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries. Those two sources were previously cited but are no longer so I've removed them. Retroplum (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Simples, this passes GA in that case. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)