Talk:Coat of arms/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 20:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'm Calvin999 and I am reviewing this nomination. — Calvin999 20:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Four dead links
 * Why is the second paragraph of the lead only one line long? Looks a bit odd
 * but this usage is wrong in a strict sense of heraldic terminology. → This doesn't sound encyclopaedic
 * from the 11th Century, → does century need to be capitalised?
 * By the 13th Century arms → Comma after century
 * become a kind of → Too conversational (use of 'kind of')
 * remained rather consistent → Too formal (use of 'rather')
 * In the 21st century, → You don't capitalised century here, but there are several instance prior where you do
 * I think the lead is far too detailed and long given the length of the article and the relatively short sections in comparison
 * In the heraldic traditions of England and Scotland an individual, → Why do you link Scotland but not England?
 * and Scotland an individual, → Comma after Scotland
 * usually a color → I would have thought that you would use British English spelling for this article, not American? Given that this article doesn't really have anything to do with America.
 * an heir presumptive. → Link heir presumptive
 * Traditions and usage has very short sentence "paragraphs", it looks odd to have them so short and separate. A paragraph should be four to five sentences
 * were so encased → Use of 'so' reads conversational
 * European tradition: some sections are short and small that they don't warrant needing a sub-section. French and British could be combined I think.
 * Also, there are more one line stray sentences. Make all prose paragraphs consisting of four to five sentences.
 * Again, the sub-sections of Asia and Africa are so small. The Islam one isn't in need of being by itself.
 * Yet, even these simple designs often express an origin.[unbalanced opinion] → This tag needs sorting
 * A one line sub-section for Canada can't be justified, it looks ridiculous. The New World practices section could easily be one paragraph for both nations.
 * Same for Catholic Church
 * A lot of the Notes are missing dates and access dates

Structurally, I think this article is a mess. One line paragraphs should be minimised but there are multiple instances, even one line sections. I don't think this article passes 1b of the criteria and it seriously needs working on. I found this article really disjointed and no flow because of how the sections have been organisae and written. The lead needs to be shrunk too. It should be a summary. I think two paragraphs would be more than enough. I'm sorry but I can't pass this article. It needs to be majorly revised. — Calvin999 20:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Outcome