Talk:Wulfhelm/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.'' Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 21:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 1. Well written?: Very well-written. Clear, concise prose.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Sources look good. I have no problems here.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Well, it's a bit short, but given when he lived, I could believe this contains most of the relevant, known information about him. I may get criticised for this, but I'm giving this a pass.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: No issues
 * 5. Article stability?: No issues
 * 6. Images?: This is one of those "where possible" requirements; illustrations for people from this period can be a bit difficult, and sometimes impossible, so I don't see this as a blocker.

While the shortness of the article might draw comment, I do consider this a well-written, well-researched piece, deserving GA status. ✅