Talk:Street House Anglo-Saxon cemetery/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 14:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Will read through and start the review proper shortly. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Review complete; looks fine, with a few minor drafting points and one licensing tag issue below. Am placing on hold.Hchc2009 (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed the tag on the Saxon princess image, and I think that's all done now. Nice article. :) Hchc2009 (talk) 10:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Well-written:

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

• "dating to the second half of the 7th century" - worth clarifying that this is AD vice BC (particularly given the BC in the following sentence).

• Good point, done. Prioryman (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• "revealed dozens of graves" - is it worth giving the actual number in the lead? 109 felt more than "dozens" to me.

• I've changed this to "over a hundred graves". Prioryman (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• "The woman's identity is unknown, but there are strong links between some of the artefacts and the layout of the cemetery, with comparable finds in the east and south-east of England." - in the context of the lead, this didn't make sense to me, either in terms of the links between the artefacts and the layout, or what the comparison with the comparable finds were.

• Reworded this bit. Prioryman (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• " in an award-winning exhibition that has attracted thousands of visitors since its opening" you could safely lose the "since its

opening".

• Done. Prioryman (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• "In 1984, Blaise Vyner " - worth noting who he is; eg. "In 1984, archaeologist Blaise Vyner" (or farmer Vyner, etc.)

• Done. Prioryman (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• "a rectangular Iron Age " - I'm not sure you've linked Iron Age

• Done. Prioryman (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• "a unique rectangular layout." - worth saying unique to what (presumably Anglo-Saxon burial sites?)

• Yes, I've reworded this bit. Prioryman (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• "the establishment of a cemetery within its boundaries was clearly intended to serve as a deliberate link to the past" - clear to whom? (you could just say "was intended to serve...")

• I think changing "clearly" to "probably" works better, since it's essentially an inference. Prioryman (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• " and seems to have been laid out as part of a single event or incident" - I wasn't sure if this meant it had been built in one go, or if everyone had died and been buried at the same time.

• I've reworded this. Prioryman (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• "it is elaborately decorated" - repetition of "elaborate"

• Replaced with "intricately".

• "perhaps a relative or a lady-in-waiting who accompanied her mistress in death as she had in life" - the last bit felt a bit "folksy" to me, but that may just be my taste! (I'd have stopped after lady-in-waiting).

• Reworded. Prioryman (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Steve Sherlock, the site's discoverer, believe" - "believes"

• Fixed. Prioryman (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Local Member of Parliament"- "The local Member of Parliament..."?

• Reworded. Prioryman (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

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

• Looks fine. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

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;

• All good. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

(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;

• All good. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research.

• None found so far. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage:

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

• Appears fine at this stage. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

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

• Looking fine so far. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

• Neutral. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

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

• Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

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

• Most are fine; File:Saxon Princess Kirkleatham.jpg needs a UK-Freedom of Panorama tag attached (the art work would be covered by copyright if it weren't displayed permanently in a public place). Hchc2009 (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

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

• Minor (would not stop GA status) but "The scallop-shaped jewel found in grave 42 along with the remains of a bed on which a high-status woman was buried" - from the way it's written, it isn't clear that the high-status woman is the "princess" named in the section or shown in the picture below, and therefore what the significance is. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I think this article is a great example of a Good Article. It's well-written, well-sourced, has interesting images, and so far as I can tell it fulfills all the WP:GA parameters. Shearonink (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)