Talk:John of Tynemouth (canon lawyer)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Canadian   Paul  21:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article in the near future, hopefully later today. Canadian  Paul  21:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

...and here it is:


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 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:


 * 1) Under "Legal career", second paragraph: "In 1203 John was employed in pleading at Rome on Walter's behalf in a case against Gerald of Wales." Since you just mentioned two "Walters" in the previous paragraph, it is not immediately clear to which you are referring in this sentence.
 * 2) Same section, fourth paragraph: "In 1203 the medieval chronicler Thomas of Marlborough, who was a monk of Evesham Abbey, pled a case for Evesham before Archbishop Walter" has the same problem.
 * 3) Same paragraph: "He also described the three men as magistri mei in scholis." A footnote with an explanation, or even a translation, might be helpful here to explain the significance of this to the uninformed reader (such as myself).

Other than that, I didn't find any issue with the article. It's a bit short and lacks any images but, considering the nature of the subject, that's hardly surprising and certainly not an impediment to a GA pass. In fact, after these clarification issues, we should be good to go! I saw your notice about being away, so if you need more than the standard seven days to address these issues, just give me a heads up on my talk page. Canadian  Paul  01:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't be an issue, should be able to get to these this evening after dinner... we're heading out tomorrow but would be in a place with confirmed internet by Wed night (grins). I'm leaving the wild west behind and heading towards civilization. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Should have handled all of these ... let me know if you think there is something else...Ealdgyth - Talk 02:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Everything looks good now, so I'll be passing the article! Congratulations and thank you for your hard work... on to the next one now for me! Canadian   Paul  17:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)