Talk:Ireland King of Arms

Picardy Arms

I don't suppose the grant made to Jehan Baret of Picardy was in fact the Picardy Coat of Arms itself? If it was, it might be worth inserting it into the article. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Geejo, I can find no evidence either way, but my gut instinct says that it was not. None of the sources that I've quoted in the article have anything to say about the arms actually granted. If you can find out more about them, then it would be great to add them. Otherwise, we'll have to keep looking.--Eva ^db 12:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added a link to an image of a grant of arms by Walter Bellinger, which is in the British library. Everything on the website is copyright of the British Library Board, so we can't add the image directly, unfortunately.The grant is to Thomas Barowe, clerk to the Duke of Gloucester. It's a bit hard to read, but I think the blazon starts at the end of the seventh line from the bottom and reads A scotcheon of sable a ? of [silver?] in his? kynd? a barr of gold in the chief two fleur de lys of the same (As an aside, it's interesting that this patent is addressed to gentlewomen as well as gentlemen!) Dr pda 20:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Great work, Doc. Thanks, too, for copy-editing some of my original text. Sometimes, I forget that not everyone knows as much about heraldry as I do. Thanks.--Eva ^db 10:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

GA comments

Passing, but there is persistent, although small, use of the word "interesting" which could be rewritten. —Rob (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Bold text

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Ireland King of Arms/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment. This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

• The lead needs to be expanded to adequately summarise the article.

• There are too many redlinks in this rather short article. Either stubs need to be written, or the links removed.

• Important statements are uncited, such as the majority of Impact and legacy, and the last halves of the final two paragraphs in Origins of the office.

• The article needs to explain the function of the office.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I've addressed these concerns. Dr pda (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks. Everything looks fine to me now, so I've closed this review. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)