Talk:John Clifford, 9th Baron Clifford/GA1

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

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 18:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Parsecboy (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The introduction is far too short - per WP:LEAD, it should summarize the whole article.


 * There's some messed up template in the first section - looks like it should be a citation?


 * Speaking of citations, they're all screwy - you have a mix of long and short citations - per WP:CITEVAR, you should standardize on one style.
 * A lot of duplicate links - there's a tool here you can install to help identify them


 * I'm not so sure the extended details of Clifford's brothers and sisters are all that relevant here, unless the siblings are otherwise notable (and since they're not linked, I would guess they are not notable). I'd probably limit it to saying he had three brothers and five sisters.
 * Piping Percy–Neville feud to "feud" is a little WP:EGGy


 * "fighting the Richard, Duke of York" - think the "the" is superfluous here


 * "Clifford- along with other anti-York peers such as the dukes of Somerset and Exeter- " - those should either be spaced ndashes or unspaced mdashes, not hyphens
 * ✅ (poss)


 * "Westmorland- particularly their caput of Brougham Castle, near Penrith- " - ditto
 * ✅ (poss)


 * "story- which later be repeated by George Edward Cokayne in his Complete Peerage[38]- " - same
 * ✅ (poss)

Parsecboy (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Images check out, license-wise
 * earwig's tool checks out.
 * Thanks very much for this, - can you take another look? I think I've sorted the dashes (with a script, if that makes a difference), the lede's longer, not sure how to sort the mixture of refs, shame I liked the family background bit, the eggs etc are eaten :) and various spells and typos. Thanks for the help so far. Cheers, &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  18:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have much experience writing biographies, so my take on the family details may not be the right one - it certainly won't be a show-stopper. On the references, probably the cleanest way to do it would be to convert them all to the short citations with harv templates that some of them are already using (sfn is another option), and then provide the full references below (like I've done here). It will take some work to convert them all over, but the templates aren't really that onerous to use. Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, we certainly have consistency of referencing now :) also a few more random typos cleared- that should be most of them, hopefully. &mdash;  fortuna  velut luna  13:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it looks good now. Great work! Parsecboy (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)