Talk:William Paynel
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Serial Number 54129 in topic GA Review
 | William Paynel has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: March 9, 2022. (Reviewed version). |
 | A fact from William Paynel appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 January 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DYK nom.. edit
SOurces... edit
here and here and here and here (PhD thesis) and here -- Ealdgyth (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:William Paynel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Serial Number 54129 (talk · contribs) 15:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
"I've been waiting for you, Billy Ray" :) great-granddaddy, etc., of one of these scroats I believe... SN54129 15:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- The authors are mostly modern, well known in the scholarship and writing for respectable publishers.
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Earwig brings up noth9ng, neither does Google more generally.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- ✓ Pass
- Pass or Fail:
Usual suggestions. Ready to promote anyway.
- Might be worth linking Anglo-Norman.
- Also Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, and Normandy.
- "when it was seized by" -- suggest "captured", avoid repeating "seized".
- "of Stephen's reign from 1135 to 1154" -- I think you could lose the "from *1135" as it's implicit on Stephen's claiming the throne...up to you though.
- You link Drax, but Drax Priory has an article too, if you want it. SN54129 15:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)