# Talk:Sigeric (bishop)

Magoun "Rome Two Northern Pilgrims" HTR (downloaded)
Sawyer "Ethelred Olaf" Scandinavian Studies JSTOR (downloaded)
Ortenberg "Archbishop Sigeric's Journey" ASE (downloaded)
Dolley "Aethelred Coins" ASE (downloaded) not our sigeric
Ealdgyth (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Ealdgyth (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sigeric (archbishop)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 12:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


### Initial comments
I have only a few minor quibbles and a couple of stylistic suggestions:

Lead
"While archbishop, Sigeric was faced with Viking invasions… The archbishop also advised King Æthelred" – might be smoother with "He" instead of the second "archbishop"
Early career
"from secular clerics to monks" – I happen to know – only from reviewing WP articles – what a secular cleric is, but not all your readers will, and a link to Secular clergy might be helpful.
Archbishop
"written by an unknown member of group accompanying" – missing a definite article?
"The manuscript mentions the 23 churches in Rome were visited" – missing a "that"?
"Rome in the tenth-century" – I'd hyphenate "tenth-century" if using it as an attributive adjective, but not as a noun.
That's all I can find to cavil about. Over to you. En passant, I had never heard of the diocese of Ramsbury and am delighted to make its acquaintance. Tim riley talk 12:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I think I got all these. On Ramsbury - there's a lot of weird ecclesiastical history lurking about in Medieval England... especially around the Norman Conquest, a LOT of dioceses moved about... some of them several times... heh. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


### Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
Well referenced.
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
Well referenced.
C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Well illustrated.
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

I may well be adopting "Bishop of Ramsbury" as my alias next time I'm questioned by the police. Meanwhile, no problems with this article for GA. Tim riley talk 19:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)