Talk:Treaty of Lödöse/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll start to work through the below later.Hchc2009 (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, some minor changes proposed but looking good. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Any further thoughts on the option of a final paragraph saying "what happened next"? (as per suggestion below) If you could confirm whether that would be possible, the rest of the review looks complete.Hchc2009 (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's gone very quiet. In the absence of resolution on the final paragraph question, I'm failing the article this go around, but I think it is almost there - all the other issues have been fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

Some minor changes proposed below:


 * "was above all shaped" > "dominated by"?
 * "Swedish province Värmland" > "province of Varmland"?
 * "The Norwegian king, to no avail, complained to the lawspeaker of Värmland and the Swedish king several times." > "The Norwegian king complained to the lawspeaker of Värmland and the Swedish king several times, but to no avail."?
 * "but because of internal conflicts" > "but because of their internal conflicts"
 * "the Norwegian plundering in Värmland" > "Norwegian plundering of Varmland"?
 * "According to the Norwegian saga, Sverris saga the future" > "According to the Norwegian saga Sverris saga, the future..."
 * "in the town Lödöse" > "town of Lodose"
 * "Lödöse was chosen as the meeting place because it was the nearest Swedish province " - nearest Swedish town? (the previous sentence said it was a town)
 * "they were scared and fled" > "became scared"?
 * "Instead, Birger Jarl, who was anyhow the de facto ruler," > "who was in reality the de facto ruler"?
 * "Birger Jarl and King Haakon agreed and promised" > "came to an agreement and promised..."

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.


 * It's minor, but in the lead you say "the summer of 1249", but the summer bit isn't mentioned in the main text.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;


 * Looks good to me.

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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;


 * Looks good.

(c) it contains no original research.


 * No OR found.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;


 * I'd be really interested in a final paragraph saying "what happened next"; it wouldn't need to cover much, but, for example: did the treaty last? Did it restore peace?

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).


 * Looks good.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.


 * Neutral and fair.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.


 * Stable.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;


 * Sweden 1250 cropped.png - the description of this could usefully be clarified; it currently says "Source: Sundberg, Ulf (1997) (in Swedish). Svenska Freder och Stillestånd 1249-1814. Arete. ISBN 91-89080-01-7. p. 20." - you might wish to add "Data from Sundberg..." or similar, to clarify that the picture itself doesn't come from the copyrighted book, only the data about the borders etc.


 * Erik-eriksson-laspe.gif - there's a slight issue with this one. The original seal is indeed older than 70 years and probably has no copyright, but what's been uploaded seems to be a drawing of the seal. The drawing itself would usually carry copyright (unless older than 70 years etc.), and there's no date for when the drawing was made. You'll need to provide a date for the drawing. (See Great Seal of King Stephen.jpg for a comparison of a similar item with a date.)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.


 * All look good.
 * Thanks for the review. I will try to act on your suggestions during the upcoming days. P. S. Burton  (talk)  10:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

What's the status of this review? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 13:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I left a message with P.S.Burton last weekend; I was going to close it as failed tomorrow unless the final issue was resolved. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)