Talk:Edmund Fitzalan, 2nd Earl of Arundel/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 16:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Specific concerns
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Images:
 * On the infobox caption, can we specify where the image is from, i.e. which manuscript, etc? Also ... which one is Edmund?
 * I've added the name of the chronicle, plus some info on the image page. The men aren't identified in the manuscript; had they only carried livery it would have been much simpler. I'm pretty sure Despenser is the grey-haired dude, since he was in his sixties at the time, but I can't really write that since it would be WP:OR.
 * General:
 * Should have Template:Persondata
 * Done
 * Lead:
 * I'm assuming that he was never canonized? Should make that explicit in the lead.
 * Done
 * Family and early life:
 * Should state at what age he was when he became of "full age" many readers aren't going to understand that phrase.
 * I've changed that sentence.
 * Opposition:
 * Who was the conflict in the reign between? Better set that out right in that first sentence of the first paragraph.
 * Done
 * Suggest either explaining why Gaveston was "presumptious" or eliminating the slightly POV term.
 * I removed the word
 * suggest rewording "grievous" to "insulting to the nobility" or something similar.
 * Changed
 * Return to loyalty:
 * Need a citation for the last sentence.
 * The sentence is elaborated on in an endnote, which has a citation.
 * Final years:
 * Done
 * Same deal with canonization, I'm assuming he wasn't? It needs to be made explicit either way.
 * Done
 * explain briefly what attainted means.
 * Done
 * Overall, very nice, Just a few spots of unclearness or other issues that need a bit more explanation. I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your thorough review. I've tried to address your issues, but if there are still problems remaining, please let me know! Lampman (talk) 07:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)