Talk:Henry le Despenser/GA1

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

Reviewer: Lampman (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid I will have to fail this article, based on what I consider lack of reliable sources. The article is almost entirely based on chronicle sources, which are primary sources, and have to be critically interpreted by a modern authority before they can be used in a Wikipedia article. The natural starting point for this article would have been R. G. Davies' article in the new DNB, and the Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae. Further to this, there are other modern books and articles relevant to the subject and his period, including Allington-Smith's biography, N. Housley's article 'The bishop of Norwich's crusade, May 1383' in History Today (1983), M. Aston's 'The impeachment of Bishop Despenser' in the Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research (1965), Saul's Richard II biography, Caferro's Hawkwood biography, McKisack's volume in the old Oxford History of England series, and Harriss' volume in the new series (also, Prestwich's Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages, p. 169, gives an assessment of the bishop's Flanders campaign). Some of these sources are referenced in the article, but they have not been used extensively. The one reference to the new DNB article links to the main page of the project, rather than to the specific article, which makes me doubt whether the article has been consulted at all. User:Ealdgyth has written a number of good articles on similar subjects; I'd advise you to look at her user page for examples. If contacted, I'm sure she will help you with hints and tips.

Although this is not a full review, I will mention some other issues I noticed about the article:
 * The name should probably be rendered "Despenser" with an "s", which seems to be the most common practice.
 * His grandfather was Hugh le Despenser the younger, yet the link is to a disambiguation page.
 * The ancestry box is unnecessary; much better would have been more prose on his family background, such as his grandfather's association with Edward II etc.
 * Large sections of the article are almost entirely without references, such as "The failure of the crusade". The standards of the GA project are getting more and more strict on articles being referenced throughout.
 * There is nothing on his impeachment after his return from the campaign in 1383.
 * The final section has a confused structuring, and there is no information on the immediate consequences of Bolingbroke's coup.
 * The layout is too choppy, with very short paragraphs and sections, see WP:Layout.
 * The maps at the end are excessive, all images used should be accompanied with critical commentary describing their relevance to the subject.
 * Sources: apart from what I've already mentioned, the sources are not properly formatted. Citation templates provides templates for proper formatting. I would also recommend enabling the refTools gadget in your preferences.
 * When nominating an article, please remember to add the GAN template on the article's talk page.

Otherwise I would like to commend you on the work done on expanding the article, and wish you good luck on further improvements. Lampman (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)