Talk:Thomas de Dundee

Untitled

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 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:
 * jackturner3 (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * jackturner3 (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * jackturner3 (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Additionally, halfway through the article, you switch from calling the subject “Thomas Nicholas” to “Thomas de Dundee.” Now, I understand you already make mention of that earlier, but you might consider adding a parenthetical note before you switch over along the lines of “Thomas de Dundee (Thomas Nicholas),” or simply using the first name (Thomas) throughout.
 * That doesn't happen. He is called Thomas or Thomas de Dundee or Bishop Thomas throughout; he is only called Nicholay in the lead and in relation to the source which calls him that; the relationship here should be transparent from the context.
 * Otherwise, I addressed the prose concerns. Tell me if it's ok. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 01:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on these revisions, I hereby promote this article to GA. -- jackturner3 (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)