Talk:Æthelberht II of East Anglia/GA1
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 11:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Review
editThis article is very close to being of good article standard. I have only a few queries. I realise that these are not all required for good article status, but should be addressed anyway IMHO:
- Files and copyright
Copyright tagging of File:St Ethelbert the King.jpg looks like it needs attention. Presumably a 1864 publication need not rely on PD-art and this should be looked at.Some of the images should be moved to Wikimedia CommonsFile:Aethelberht runic 7 8th century.jpg needs a better description.- File:The kingdom of East Anglia (Early Saxon period).svg: map copyrights are complicated. If you have used copyrighted maps and then traced them you may have created an illegal derivative work. Seek further assistance and comment from WP:MCQ or similar.
- Some files, such as File:Alby Church.png, could do with more / better categories.
.svg){kind=link}
- Coverage
The coverage included in the article is good. The obvious lack is of any details of his actions and achievements whilst king. I realise that this is probably the result of missing information in sources. If this is the case, general hints at what we should expect from the reign of any Anglo-Saxon king of that period may be called for.
- Other
The article needs to be checked to ensure it complies with British spelling.- Referencing and other GA criteria (stability, other elements of the MOS, etc.) look good.
I am therefore placing the article on hold. - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 11:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- The coin image now has a better caption.--Amitchell125 (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Spellings checked.--Amitchell125 (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Anglo-Saxon East Anglia map checked for copyright issues - see Anglo-Saxon map of East Anglia --Amitchell125 (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Cool. Using existing height and OSM data was a good move. Of course, the SA bit of both of those licences needs to be added to the file description page. i.e. the coastline and height data remain CC-BY-SA of (supply author's name as appropriate). I could do that, but it struck me that it might be easier to license your contributions as CC-BY-SA as well. Would you consider changing? Technically people could object, but I don't think they will. - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 23:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Jarry1250, would you mind helping me out with the licencing issue? I don't really know how to add to the file description page or edit the licence, well not without a lot of trial and error. Cheers. --Amitchell125 (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Cool. Using existing height and OSM data was a good move. Of course, the SA bit of both of those licences needs to be added to the file description page. i.e. the coastline and height data remain CC-BY-SA of (supply author's name as appropriate). I could do that, but it struck me that it might be easier to license your contributions as CC-BY-SA as well. Would you consider changing? Technically people could object, but I don't think they will. - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 23:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm happy the gallery's gone now, it made sense not to have it. --Amitchell125 (talk) 11:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Is the article good to go now? No comments in a couple weeks. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, could've sworn I passed this one. Evidently not :). I am doing so now, however. Excellent work on a topic about which little is known. My ongoing suggestion would be to try to fill in details about some of the decisions he may have taken as king. But ultimately, it seems that that is pure (but interesting) conjecture, and I can't really penalise the article for lacking it. Regards, - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 16:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)