Talk:William Edington

GA status
I see some problems here that should be fixed. As this is a short article, it is possible to get these fixed during the “On hold” window of seven days.


 * 1. It is well written
 * To fix
 * The lead section states that his reforms “contributed to the English military efficiency in the early stages of the Hundred Years' War”. As the lead section is a summary of the article, there should be a reference to the Hundred Years’ War somewhere in the main sections. I believe that was intended in the phrase “intense war efforts of the last few years”. However, I wasn’t sure. Perhaps you could say “intense efforts of the Hundred Years’ War”? Also when was he born? If unknown, one could state this (b. unknown - d. October 6, 1366). There are also dead Wikilinks. Stubs should be written for them or they should be left as normal text.
 * 2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * To fix
 * The phrase “The king must have been impressed” sounds like an opinion so it should be cited.
 * 3. It is broad in its coverage.
 * Pass
 * 4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Pass
 * 5. It is stable
 * Pass
 * 6. It contains images
 * To fix
 * The first image should have a fair-use rationale. Also it should state the source and author of the image.

I have put the article on hold to let you make the changes before promoting the article to GA status. RelHistBuff 08:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for constructive criticism. I’ve addressed your concerns, with one exception. The form (d. October 6, 1366) I believe is self-explanatory to mean that date of birth is unknown. This is also the accepted form according to the manual of style, so I haven’t changed this. Eixo 15:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Great and thanks for MoS note. It has been promoted. RelHistBuff 19:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)