Talk:Humphrey Stafford (died 1442)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.'' I am giving this article a GA Review. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 17:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * I realize that we are at a great length of time from this man's life but are there more important details/life events that could be added? I am concerned at the shortness of this article.
 * I'll give it a try, certainly. O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  11:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) 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&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * I need to do some checking on this.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * I ran the copyvio tool and none were found.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * The content is almost too focused (if that is possible).
 * I can provide more context to his life, etc- That might help assuage the issue of article length too? O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  11:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Are there more images available of Stafford's various holdings?
 * Good idea- ironically, it was the shortness of the article that dissuaded me from overloading it with images. O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  11:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I did a general read-through. Passing the article to GA-status is on hold just pending these last few items:
 * I found a mistake in one of the Wikilinks. "arras" links to the city of the same name in France, but I think the intent is to link it to Tapestry as in Arras (disambiguation).
 * I think the wording and linking of Berkeley inheritance was later claimed should be adjusted - there are so many words in red that it is a bit disconcerting. Also, which Thomas, Lord Berkeley is being referred to in that particular paragraph?  (Is there perhaps already a Wikipedia article about this individual, but maybe under a different name?) Shearonink (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I did a general read-through. Passing the article to GA-status is on hold just pending these last few items:
 * I found a mistake in one of the Wikilinks. "arras" links to the city of the same name in France, but I think the intent is to link it to Tapestry as in Arras (disambiguation).
 * I think the wording and linking of Berkeley inheritance was later claimed should be adjusted - there are so many words in red that it is a bit disconcerting. Also, which Thomas, Lord Berkeley is being referred to in that particular paragraph?  (Is there perhaps already a Wikipedia article about this individual, but maybe under a different name?) Shearonink (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the wording and linking of Berkeley inheritance was later claimed should be adjusted - there are so many words in red that it is a bit disconcerting. Also, which Thomas, Lord Berkeley is being referred to in that particular paragraph?  (Is there perhaps already a Wikipedia article about this individual, but maybe under a different name?) Shearonink (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment: This review is only on hold pending the last three items above: 1)arras/WIkilink, 2)the redlinked inheritance phrase, and 3)which Lord Berkeley exactly? Shearonink (talk) Comment: I'm sorry, I just now did one last read-through and have found a few errors (mostly minor punctuation/grammar issues...with the exception of a pesky mystery man...):
 * Right-think I've resolved those points- also found another image- and can still add some context. O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  12:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * brother, John on the King's Council. (missing a comma, should be)-> brother, John, on the King's council
 * ...and by 1403, he had been retained... has a comma too many. I think the sense would be better if   ...and by 1403 had been retained
 * in 1406, and Ralph continued serving... I'm sorry but just  who  is this "Ralph"? Is Ralph one of Stafford's - probably many - names? I know present members of the British royal family seem to have a long string of names as their Official Name.
 * and the whole Berkeley inheritance claimed. is missing a verb, should be "and the whole Berkeley inheritance was claimed" (by the way, big thumbs-up for your recrafting of this section.) Shearonink (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I should have caught them sooner - really, you're almost done ! Shearonink (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ No problem,, let me know if you find anything else - But see my edit-summary for the full confession! O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  16:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)