Talk:Wehha of East Anglia/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 11:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: Two found, one fixed, I tagged the other as it is unclear what the target should be. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Second disambiguation sorted. Hel-hama (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Reasonably well-written and sufficiently compliant with the manual of style.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * What makes {http://www.kmatthews.org.uk/history/anglian_collection.html} a reliable source?
 * I agree, source removed. Hel-hama (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Consistency: Book titles are given inconsistently, e.g. The Age of Sutton Hoo and Age of Sutton Hoo; Newton, The Origins of Beowulf, p. 105. needs bibliographic details in the Sources section;  The Earliest English Kings and Kings; Palgrave, The Rise and Progress of the English Commonwealth needs bibliographic details in Sources; Rainbird Clarke, R. or Clarke - be consistent; Fitzpatrick-Matthews, Keith (2006). "The ‘Anglian Collection’ of Royal Genealogies". Keith’s History Pages. is listed twice in sources.
 * All in all this is a bit of a muddle and needs sorting out.
 * All sorted. Hel-hama (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * This is the difficult part. Can an article based upon a few scraps and passing mentions ever be considered broad in its coverage?  I shall think on this. On due consideration, this article summarises the few sources about Wehha very well. It is a broad as it can be.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * neutral
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * stable
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * licensed and captioned
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am happy to pass this as a good article, congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)