| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thored article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Thored has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 4, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Thored, ealdorman of southern Northumbria, disappears from the historical records after being charged with leading a fleet against marauding Vikings? | |||||||||
GA Review
edit- This review is transcluded from Talk:Thored/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Starting GA review Jezhotwells (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Quick fail criteria assessment
- The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
- The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
- There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
- The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
- The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
Pass quickfail criteria Jezhotwells (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Checking against GA criteria
edit- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
This article is not reasonably well written. There are many errors of grammar throughout. I recommend that you enlist a copy editor at WP:Peer_review/volunteers#General_copyediting. I shall place the article on hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)I have performed more copy editing and the article is now reasonably well written. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- b (MoS):
- OK
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
- checked as far as is possible.
The ISBN checksums do not check. Please address this. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)OK now Jezhotwells (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- checked as far as is possible.
- b (citations to reliable sources):
- OK
- c (OR):
- No evidence of OR
- a (references):
- It is broad in its scope.
- a (major aspects):
- Broad in scope
- b (focused):
- Focussed
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- NPOV
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- Stable
- No edit wars etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Images OK, but there is no description on the image page for the coins. I have templated the uploader Jezhotwells (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
Please enlist help to copy edit as cited above Jezhotwells (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Just the ISBNs of the books need checking and amending. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Ok, all good now, congratulations, passed as GA Jezhotwells (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
- I've given this article a copy-edit. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)