Bregowine has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion 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. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Pyrotec ( talk) 07:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
A short well referenced article, so its quick to review.
My only concern is the WP:LEAD, its a short article and an even short lead. The lead is OK as an "introduction", but as a "summary" (it should perform both functions) does it accurately reflect what's in the article? For instance:
Bearing in mind that the article is short, I see little point in insisting that informatation is presented in summary form in both the Lead and the infobox, as well as in the body of the article. So, I'm happy for information such as appointment, successor, feast day, etc, to appear in the infobox rather than the Lead.
Pyrotec ( talk) 09:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Congratulations on gaining another GA. Pyrotec ( talk) 13:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
This source lists him as August 24. Is there any support for August 24?-- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 01:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Bregowine has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion 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. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Pyrotec ( talk) 07:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
A short well referenced article, so its quick to review.
My only concern is the WP:LEAD, its a short article and an even short lead. The lead is OK as an "introduction", but as a "summary" (it should perform both functions) does it accurately reflect what's in the article? For instance:
Bearing in mind that the article is short, I see little point in insisting that informatation is presented in summary form in both the Lead and the infobox, as well as in the body of the article. So, I'm happy for information such as appointment, successor, feast day, etc, to appear in the infobox rather than the Lead.
Pyrotec ( talk) 09:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Congratulations on gaining another GA. Pyrotec ( talk) 13:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
This source lists him as August 24. Is there any support for August 24?-- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 01:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)