Talk:Alphege.html
 
| ca | de | en | es | fr | it | nl | no | pl | pt | ru | ro | fi | sv | tr | vo |


 

Good article Alphege 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 delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
January 16, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
 This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Middle Ages      (Rated GA-Class)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and how best to improve it.
WikiProject Somerset      (Rated GA-Class)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somerset, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somerset on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Anglicanism      (Rated GA-Class)
Anglicanism portal
Alphege is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.


The passage on the second Alphege was copied verbatim from the Oxford Dictionary of Saints, very much in the copyright of the OUP. I've marked the article for appropriate consideration.Staffelde 22:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments:

  1. In the second paragraph of "Life", Aelfric redirects to a disambig page — the wikilink should be modified/piped to point to the specific person.
Piped and dealt with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealdgyth (talk • contribs) 04:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. The third paragraph of "Veneration" is unacceptable for an encyclopedic article. First of all, there should be no external links within the body of an article. Secondly, it is completely uncited. Thirdly, the first sentence is not prose, but a list smashed into a quasi-sentence. Fourthly, calling something "unexpectedly charming" is subjective, not very neutral and certainly not very encyclopedic. Most of the "???" above came from just this paragraph.
Done. That section was in the article when I started work on it, and I have no idea where to find citations for it, so it can go and I can keep looking for citations for it. Luckily, it's almost a trivia section, so it's not vital to the article. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. The "Records" section is too small to be its own Level 3 heading; it needs to be either expanded or merged (I would suggest merging it into "Veneration", as it would seem to make sense there). Also, Osborn does not lead to the person who wrote the account, but to a disambig. page. Also, the last part requires a citation if you're claiming that it's something he directly said. Also, the lead doesn't cover this section but, if merged into "Veneration", the lead can probably do without it.
Merged. Thanks for the suggestion! I don't think Osborn wrote anything else, so rather than redlink him, I just unlinked him. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That should deal with most of it, thanks, as usual, for the detailed suggestions and the tweaks you made. Anything else you see? Ealdgyth | Talk 04:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

To allow for these changes to be made, I am placing the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 04:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks great now, so I will be passing it as a Good Article! Congratulations, and thank you for your hard work! Cheers, CP 05:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Unclear drafting

I don't understand "His shrine, which was depreciated by Lanfranc". "depreciated" doesn't have an evident meaning in this context (it should be an accountancy term). Is it, on the analogy of uses in Romance languages, supposed to mean that Lanfranc said he didn't like it? Or something else?

And does "Saint Thomas Becket is said to have commended his life into St Alphege's care right before he was martyred." mean "just" before he was martyred?

Deipnosophista (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarified both of those, hopefully. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
All Right Reserved © 2007, Designed by Stylish Blog.