Talk:Skipsea Castle/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) 20:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go - just a couple of minor points. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article.

I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.

Issues preventing promotion

 * It is reasonably well written
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "which is only around 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) away in the 21st century" might sound better as "which in the 21st century is only around 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) away"
 * "and a dam was probably constructed" - link dam (since you link harbour)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * "a Flemish mercenary and the first Earl of Holderness," are you sure he was the earl - the source just says "lord" and he is not listed among the earls at the linked page.


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * It is stable.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:


 * Thanks for the review! I've checked, and some Victorians called Drogo an earl, which may be where the text originally crept in, but you're right, modern sources don't, so I've removed it. Other changes have been made as suggested. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It still says earldom in the next line. Change that and I'm happy to promote!--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed! ;) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)