Talk:Gervase de Cornhill

DYK nom

Template:Did you know nominations/Gervase de Cornhill Ealdgyth - Talk 22:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sabrebd (talk · contribs) 21:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I will be reviewing this article. On first read it looks to be of high quality and is fairly short, so this probably will not take me very long.--SabreBD (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

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.	It is generally well written. Just a couple of minor suggestions that might help clarity: It might help the casual reader to give some counties for locations (like Gamlingay in Cambridgeshire). Under the Royal administrator section: the phrase "..1155 through 1157,[2] 1160–1161,[1] and may have held that office between 1159 and 1160 as well", it might be better to have a consistent format like, 1155-57, 1157 and 1160-61". A really minor point, but it might be a good idea just to say what the source is, just so the uncertainty is clear, for the confrontation with Becket (according to...) - assuming its obvious in the secondary source. WP:YEAR says that date ranges should be in the format 1167-98. However, I am not sure if that works very well when the second date is has a circa in front of it, and that would particularly be a problem in the infobox, so I will leave that call up to you.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	That all seems fine.
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.	All fine, consistent system
	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).	all covered
	2c. it contains no original research.	I only have one of the sources to hand but no sign of this
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It probably has everything known about the subject.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Yes.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No bias evident.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	very
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.	No images, for obvious reasons. A picture of the subject is pretty unlikely, unless there is something illustrating the arrival of Becket. It may be nice to have something relevant to the article, such as Becket, Henry or a location mentioned in the article, but its a judgement call for editors, not a requirement.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

I've added the counties. I've removed the dash - it's actually significant that we say "1155 through 1157" or "between 1159 and 1160" - I'm following my sources exactly in how they word things (or I should be!) ... there weren't formal start and end dates for appointments in this period ... so the source is conveying nuance that I don't want lost. And Barlow's not very good at telling me who was the source for what in this narrative - but it appears to be a consensus of many of the sources, given the footnotes. If I was going to FAC with this guy (I'm not, you're right that this is pretty much IT as far as stuff about him and it's a bit too scant) I'd worry about WP:YEAR, but here, it's not a biggie and I think it looks really odd to use xxxx-xx, personally. Thank you so much for the review! Let me know if there are other things you want addressed. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

That is all fine. Most of this is just suggestions and I very much appreciate the problems of sources for this kind of topic. This is good work and I am happy to pass it for GA. Keep up the good work.--SabreBD (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)