Talk:William the Conqueror/GA1

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

Reviewer: Chip123456 (talk · contribs) 19:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The article is well written. It is sourced, however there are a few long paragraphs which only have one reference. To give the article best reliability we need to have more references for the longer paragraphs and break them up more. I will but the article on hold for around a week for these problems to be rectified. --Chip123456 (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Also other comments are welcome. Please feel to leave comments on how to improve this page. --Chip123456 (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * When the entire paragraph is sourced to one source there is no need to just add sources for the sake of adding sources. It is perfectly acceptable to have one citation for a paragraph. And paragraph size is dependent on what the paragraph is covering - the ideal is that a paragraph covers one event/topic/etc fully. Without more specifics, I'm afraid I can't really act on this sort of review. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid you will. I reviewed previous articles and passed them, not just because of their high standard but because of the number of references which backed them. The article will remain on hold for 6 more days. --Chip123456 (talk) 09:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? Show me in the GA criteria where I need to break add more citations for the reason you gave? I'm more than happy to deal with specific concerns if they are listed, I just don't see that this "To give the article best reliability we need to have more references for the longer paragraphs and break them up more" are actionable concerns.There is no requirement for a certain number of citations per paragraph. And please don't bother using a talkback template on my talk page ... I have this page watchlisted and will notice anything added and there is a nice banner at the top of my talk page requesting folks to not use talkback templates on my page. I'd greatly appreciate not having them on my page. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Chip, Ealdgyth is right here. The good article criteria certainly require referencing, but there is nothing there that demands more than one source per paragraph. In fact, the relevant guideline suggests that a single reference at the end of paragraphs may often be completely appropriate- only if material is particularly contentious, relies upon multiple sources or is the kind of thing that always requires careful attribution (statistics, quotes, negative information about a living person, etc) will more than that be needed. Unless you are worried that sources which should be cited are not cited, or that information in the paragraphs in question is not taken from the cited sources, then your concern does not seem to be a useful one. This is a long and carefully written article about a highly important topic, and warrants close and careful review; the fact that you've gone through this entire article (I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you have...) and your only feedback is a vague statement about citation density suggests to me that you are not someone who should be reviewing this article. If you are not willing or able to provide more useful feedback than this, I strongly advise you step down from this review and let someone else take it up. J Milburn (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And I'd like to add that I greatly welcome a very thorough and intense review. I have plans for taking this article to FA status and all eyes are welcome to pick apart my errors, which I know I've made, as we are all human and make mistakes. I want this article (as with all the articles I work on) to be the very best it can possibly be. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The article is written very well indeed. As pointed out, and as I very well know it is not KEY CRITERIA for the article to be awarded GA status but as I said I want this article to be the best. Also please note, I had every intention of passing the article anyway, as it is an excellent article, but I just wanted to increase to number of references to cover the vast paragraph area. I do have to admit that it was somewhat picky of me. Also sorry for the offence caused with the TB templates Ealdgyth. I will pass the article now. --Chip123456 (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)