Talk:Orkneyinga saga/GA1

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

Reviewer: Maunus (talk · contribs) 06:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Review
I am happy to review this article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

A very pleasant and interesting read. Well developed and with a good balance between summary of the narrative and scholarly opinion. I think this will be an easy pass. I will have to do some spotchecks of some of the sources, to make sure they are represented correctly and that there is no close paraphrasing, but I assume there is no such issues. I have fixed some of the references that named Sturluson as sturlson, I made some minor wording changes, I also changed the name of Rögnvalds son whom I am pretty sure is Hrollaug and not Hrolluag. The reference number 16 should presumably to Crawford 2003 and not 2013, since there is no "Crawford 2013" in the literature list. Could we put ref 27, Knut Helle, into the literature list so it doesn't stand out as the only long ref in the reference section?


 * 1) Well written:
 * 2) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|16px|Good article]]
 * 3) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|16px|Good article]]
 * 4) Verifiable with no original research:
 * 5) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|16px|Good article]]
 * 6) all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|16px|Good article]]
 * 7) it contains no original research; and [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|16px|Good article]]
 * 8) it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
 * 9) Broad in its coverage:
 * 10) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|16px|Good article]]
 * 11) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|16px|Good article]]
 * 12) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|16px|Good article]]
 * 13) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|16px|Good article]]
 * 14) Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|16px|Good article]]
 * 15) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|16px|Good article]]
 * 16) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|16px|Good article]]

Many thanks for the review. As you can see I made rather a mess of doing the Crawford fix. In fact, one reference from 2013 was missing so thanks for drawing my attention to that. The Helle ref is also fixed (I think - Template:Citation is a little inflexible in cases like this.) You are of course correct about the spelling of 'Hrollaug'. Ben  Mac  Dui  16:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I don't think there is anything to keep me from promoting this. Very fine work.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)