Talk:Sibyl de Neufmarché/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 10:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 10:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've now completed my initial read through of the article.

At this point in time the article appears to be reasonably comprehensive in scope, well referenced and well illustrated. So, as it appears to be compliant with WP:WIAGA, I will not be "quick failing" it. I'm also aware of the "other" Talk:Sibyl de Neufmarché#GA Review; but I've not made any decisions on the points raised in that discussion.

Over the next day or so I will be going through the article in more depth, section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until the end; and noting here any "problems", if any, that I find. This is "problem finding", so if I don't have much to say about a particular section/subsection that means that I regard it as being generally compliant with WP:WIAGA. Any questions or comments that you may have can also be added here.

Finally, I will provide an Overall summary and a pass/fail decision - it I put the review On Hold that will be done in the Initial review not the Final review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Ancestry -

• Note: I'm reviewing this section out of sequence.
• I don't see the point of this section as it currently stands. It is devoid of text and merely has a family-tree-type diagram "Ancestors of Sibyl de Neufmarché", which appears to be a representation of the first two paragraphs in the Family inheritance section (see Family inheritance below).

 Done

• Family inheritance -

• There is a contrast between the first two paragraphs, which are about Sibyl's ancestors, and the final paragraph which is really about the consequences on Sibyl that arrise from a "dispute" between Sibyl's mother and brother.
• This is arguably not a requirement of WP:GAN, but it could fall under section 1 of WP:WIAGA so you can argue against this suggestion if you so choose.This section might "read" better if it where given a new section title and then split two two subsections. The first two paragraphs could moved into a subsection entitled Ancestry and the diagram moved into it from the current Ancestry section; and the third paragraph moved into a subsection called Family inheritance .

 Done

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 13:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• The third paragraph is generally well written; however it refers to "the maritagium (marriage charter) arranged by King Henry in 1121" and "Miles" without clarify that it is refering to a marriage between Sibyl and Miles and that Miles is the husband or husband-to-be (the marriage appears in the following section).

• Would it work with a 'see below'? Something like: "However, a charter arranged by King Henry in 1121 – the maritagium (see below) – makes it clear that Bernard was still alive when it was written; showing Bernard Bolingbroke Woodward's version of the story to diverge from the known facts." Daicaregos (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

How does my edit look?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That was quick. Yes, I'll accept that. Pyrotec (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Marriage -

• This looks OK.

• The Anarchy, Widowhood and death & Sibyl's legacy

• These sections look OK.

• WP:Lead -

• This looks OK.

As there are a few minor points to be resolved, I'm putting this review On Hold. The article should gain GA once they have been resolved. Pyrotec (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

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

2. 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:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

As the minor points in my review have now been resolved, I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations in producing an informative, well-referenced and illustrated article. Pyrotec (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Pyrotec.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I'm not asking for removal of the diagram "Ancestors of Sibyl de Neufmarché", just the empty section that it was in. Pyrotec (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)