Talk:Edmund of Woodstock, 1st Earl of Kent/GA1

GA Review edit

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

Reviewer: Ruby2010 (talk · contribs) 02:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Will review soon! Ruby 2010/2013 02:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  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 edit

  • "The antagonism was largely caused by Edward's preference for his new favourites, Hugh Despenser the Younger and his father by the same name" Can probably delete "by the same name" (the Earl of Winchester's link is enough, I think)
  • Fixed
Family background and early years
  • Edward I -> Edward I of England on first mention
  • Fixed
  • With all the Edwards, make sure you make it easy for casual readers (i.e. "In August 1306 Edward signed a charter..." Make Edward I to help distinguish from son)
  • Added a couple of these, where it could be confusing.
  • My bad; I forgot I wrote that! Fixed. Lampman (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Civil war
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • "Even with Lancaster out of the picture" sounds un-encyclopedic. Maybe, "Even with Lancaster defeated..."
  • Fixed
  • Not sure "contrariants" is the best word to use here; thoughts?
  • Changed to "rebels".
Scotland and France
  • 14 October -> 14 October 1322
  • Fixed
  • 30 May -> 30 May 1323
  • Fixed
Other
  • As far as I can see, Davies isn't cited, nor is Keen
  • Removed
  • You could also be consistent with the page numbers (pp. 556–7 vs pp. 197–198 for instance)
  • Think I've got all of these now.
  • The lead statement "Though he was officially exonerated, Edmund did not enjoy a great reputation during his life and afterwards, due to his unreliable political dealings." does not reflect the article body. Is there enough historiography of Edmund to warrant a new section?
  • I wasn't able to find much, but I added a short paragraph at the bottom.

Not a lot to nitpick here; it is a well-written, clear article that describes a fascinating period of history. Good use of varied sources, no dab or image problems. I'll place the article on hold for seven days. Please respond back on this page when you have finished editing. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 04:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Reply