The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC) [1]. reply
Æthelstan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
This article is about Æthelstan, the first King of England. He was king from 924 to 939, and was one of the most important Anglo-Saxon monarchs. It has passed GA and A-Class, and I believe it meets the criteria for FA. Dudley Miles ( talk) 19:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
What version of English are we in here? I presume British English, but I see Americanisms. Even just on the lead, I can see non-trivial problems with the prose. Fuller review to follow. -- John ( talk) 20:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Image review
Will jot questions below: Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 07:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Overall, a nice read - it comes across as nicely balanced between the historians and openminded and methodical (a good thing) and winds up nicely with a nice legacy section. Within striking distance of FA-ness methinks..... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 08:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Am cautiously giving support on comprehensiveness and prose, though I suspect other reviewers will find quibbles here and there... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 19:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Close to a support, although the text doesn't always read easily - this may be a result of the original sources. Some comments on detail:
Hchc2009 ( talk) 17:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Cautious support: I reviewed this article for GA when it was very good, but quite rough and ready in places. It is greatly improved now, and I think the structure is better than it was. I have no real quibbles (except I wonder if we really need to list the institutions at which the various historians work. But that is not a huge issue for me, it just feels unnecessary), and I think this meets the criteria. It is certainly comprehensive and the sourcing and content are impeccable. My only reservation (and hence the "cautious") is with the prose. To be honest, I can't see any problems as such and I think it meets the usual high level of history FAs, but I notice a couple of people have raised queries about it. I have a bit of a blind spot with history articles, as I'm fairly familiar with the style used in history works, so I may have missed something. Others may have concerns where I wouldn't. With that in mind, I'd be happier if someone took another look purely from a prose perspective. After all that rambling, well done for a really top-notch article on an important (and neglected) figure.
Sarastro1 (
talk)
11:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
reply
Notes -- we seem to be at the tail-end of this review, so with that in mind:
Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 06:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC) [1]. reply
Æthelstan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
This article is about Æthelstan, the first King of England. He was king from 924 to 939, and was one of the most important Anglo-Saxon monarchs. It has passed GA and A-Class, and I believe it meets the criteria for FA. Dudley Miles ( talk) 19:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
What version of English are we in here? I presume British English, but I see Americanisms. Even just on the lead, I can see non-trivial problems with the prose. Fuller review to follow. -- John ( talk) 20:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Image review
Will jot questions below: Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 07:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Overall, a nice read - it comes across as nicely balanced between the historians and openminded and methodical (a good thing) and winds up nicely with a nice legacy section. Within striking distance of FA-ness methinks..... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 08:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Am cautiously giving support on comprehensiveness and prose, though I suspect other reviewers will find quibbles here and there... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 19:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Close to a support, although the text doesn't always read easily - this may be a result of the original sources. Some comments on detail:
Hchc2009 ( talk) 17:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Cautious support: I reviewed this article for GA when it was very good, but quite rough and ready in places. It is greatly improved now, and I think the structure is better than it was. I have no real quibbles (except I wonder if we really need to list the institutions at which the various historians work. But that is not a huge issue for me, it just feels unnecessary), and I think this meets the criteria. It is certainly comprehensive and the sourcing and content are impeccable. My only reservation (and hence the "cautious") is with the prose. To be honest, I can't see any problems as such and I think it meets the usual high level of history FAs, but I notice a couple of people have raised queries about it. I have a bit of a blind spot with history articles, as I'm fairly familiar with the style used in history works, so I may have missed something. Others may have concerns where I wouldn't. With that in mind, I'd be happier if someone took another look purely from a prose perspective. After all that rambling, well done for a really top-notch article on an important (and neglected) figure.
Sarastro1 (
talk)
11:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
reply
Notes -- we seem to be at the tail-end of this review, so with that in mind:
Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 06:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply