Talk:Exhumation and reburial of Richard III of England/GA1

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

Reviewer: 3family6 (talk · contribs) 21:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * No major problems with the prose, copy-vio check came out negative.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 18:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * MOS is followed.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 18:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * "Watson, Greig. "Richard III dig: Grim clues to the death of a king". http://www.bbc.com. BBC. Retrieved 25 December 2014. "Of 10 injuries visible on the skeleton there are eight on the skull alone." - This reference contains a bare URL (for bbc.com), and no other web citations contain a link to the site home page, so it's also an inconsistency.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 18:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This one was fixed.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 04:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Further inconsistencies in the citations. For example, the following source separates elements using commas, while others use periods: ""Richard III - The Scientific Outcome". Richard Buckley, University of Leicester, 4 February 2013." Either method is fine, but the same method should be used consistently throughout the article.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 18:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , you fixed the one ref that I highlighted above, but many of the other references still need to be worked on so that they all follow a consistent format.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 04:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've gone through all of the refs and they are all, I think without exception, utilising citation templates. If there are any inconsistencies left it's likely because of differences between the various citation templates, which isn't something I can do anything about. Prioryman (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * All set. I was merely talking about how some refs, for example, might say bbc.co.uk as the work, and others BBC News, even though they both were BBC News. All fixed now.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 16:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:
 * All content is cited to reliable sources.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 18:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * C. No original research:
 * All content is verifiable.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 18:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * All major aspects are dealt with.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 18:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * B. Focused:
 * Focused on the subject.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 18:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Neutral, fair, no bias.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * Stable, no recent edit wars.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 18:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * All images are within policy. One image is involved with the National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute, but use of it is within WikiMedia policy, so I'll not fault the article for using it.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 18:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Images are useful and relevant, and captions are appropriate.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 18:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall: A few inconsistencies and such in the citation format, otherwise good to go.
 * Fixed. Passed.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 16:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:

Stable?
I don't think I could agree with that. Once the burial actually takes place, the controversy could start up again. Deb (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Which controversy is that? I see that there was some dispute regarding how much weight to attribute to Hicks and Biddle, but I'm not entirely sure that an edit war happened. It's fine to have disputes, and even frequent revisions working out an issue. But since April the article hasn't had anything that looks anything like an edit war, and that's well before Prioryman nominated this article.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 21:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's correct, and I wonder if Deb might be misunderstanding what "stability" means in this context. It's not that there won't be any future controversies, merely whether there has been any edit warring in the recent past on the article. I can't see any evidence of an edit war at any point on the subject of where Richard should be buried. Prioryman (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The evidence is so overwhelming that Hicks and Biddle will backtrack soon enough. In fact, I don't even think their doubts should even be in the article.  It just seems so attention-seeking.  That's my $0.02.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. The comments tend to stick out like the proverbial 'sore thumb'. But I suspect they are more likely to just fall silent than backtrack. They created a blip in the news pages, but were then forgotten. There is no real ongoing controversy. Biddle's great idea that there should be some sort of commission-inquest has been completely ignored by everyone, unsurprisingly, since it's completely unworkable. Hicks is a historian of Richard's era, but that means he's an expert on his life, not on the scientific archaeology of bones, DNA, etc. In fact being an expert on the life of Richard III is almost completely irrelevant to this issue. Paul B (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree too. I was thinking more of the controversy about where he should be buried.Deb (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)