Talk:Hallaton Helmet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHallaton Helmet has been listed as one of the Art and architecture 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 14, 2013Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 24, 2012.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Hallaton Helmet may have been owned by a Briton who fought alongside the Romans during their conquest of Britain in AD 43?

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hallaton Helmet/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 19:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Prioryman, assuming you don't mind getting another review from me so soon, I'll be glad to take this one. (If you'd rather have a variety of eyes on your work, on the other hand, it wouldn't hurt my feelings at all to hand this off to someone else.) Comments to follow before the end of the day, hopefully. Thanks as always for your hard work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, thanks for your help! Prioryman (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

This looks solid and ripe for promotion to me. I only have one initial concern, noted below, though I've also done some tweaking as I went--please double-check my edits and feel free to revert if you disagree. Also, I went ahead and archived the web sources for the article since it relies heavily on them--hope you don't mind.

  • "of immense importance regarding the understanding of Iron Age Britain" -- "of immense importance" is a bit subjective. Is it possible to attribute this opinion in the text? Otherwise, I'd suggest just sticking to more concrete statements of what was found there. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, that statement was left over from an old version of the article before I got my hands on it. I've rewritten it now to be a straight description of the site. Prioryman (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Prose is clear; spotchecks show no copyright issues.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research. The statement that the site is of "immense importance" needs sourcing or removal, as a subjective opinion (not that I disagree, of course).
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Pass