Talk:Baldwin of Forde

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments:

1. The "Archbishop of Canterbury" section is far too long. It should be broken up with at least one subsection to make it easier on the reader.

Y Done. Hopefully it was broken in a way that works, if not we can try something different. Ealdgyth | Talk 05:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems as if your capitalization of "archbishop" is inconsistent. For example, under "Archbishop of Canterbury", you write "During his time as archbishop..." in the first paragraph, but "With the death of Henry II, and the accession of Richard I of England, the monks of Christ Church Priory petitioned Richard to intercede in the long running dispute between them and the Archbishop." in the final. In neither of these cases does the word "archbishop" come with a title (such as "Archbishop Baldwin" or "King Henry"), so I guess I'm just a bit confused... but maybe there's a pattern that I'm missing? You might want to check it for "king", "kingship" and "kingdom" as well.

Y Done. The weirdness resulted from large chunks of the article being here before I started revising, and me just staring at the prose too much to see the weirdnesses. Ealdgyth | Talk 05:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

1. "The annulment and new marriage were performed by the Archbishop of Pisa and the Bishop of Beauvais on 24 November." (On the Third Crusade) requires a citation.\

Y Done. I just wiped it from the article, as I have lost my copy of Runicman's third volume (which covers the Third Crusade) and cannot possibly source the data. Luckily, it happened after Baldwin's death so I can cut it without hurting the narrative. Ealdgyth | Talk 05:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

1. I think the lead needs a little more expansion per WP:LEAD. It meets the criteria at a basic level, but I feel like it could use a bit (but not much) more detail. For example, you write that "Baldwin quarreled with the clergy", which severely downplays the nature of the conflict. Similarly, the first paragraph of "On the Third Crusade" takes up over half the section, but there's no mention of it in the lead. Finally, there's nothing on the "Legacy" section in the lead.

Y Done. Expanded by about four sentences. Let me know if you would like more. Ealdgyth | Talk 05:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

To allow for these changes to be made, I am putting the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which is may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 03:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the great review. I'll get to them tomorrow, I'm hip deep in William de St-Calais right now, which I've been trying to get to for days, so I don't wanna stop myself when I finally got on a roll... Ealdgyth | Talk 04:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Great work as usual. A lot of clever and unexpected solutions to my concerns this round too. I will now be passing this as a Good Article. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Cheers, CP 05:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

More images?

Methinks this article would benefit from more images. Images would liven up the visuals and to help readers better navigate the article. I realize that if there were images of Baldwin, they'd already be in the article, but perhaps there are additional appropriate images. I'll look. Madman (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)