Talk:Boulogne agreement/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Initial Comments

This appears to be a well-referenced article at or about GA-standard. I will therefore carry out a more detailed review against WP:WIAGA. Pyrotec (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Document and interpretation -

• A minor comment: "Escrites a Boloigne le darrein jour de Janver l'an de Grace MCCC et septisme". I was unaware until now that I could partially read Anglo-Norman: but does not 'de Grace MCCC et Septisme' mean "1300 & 7 = 1307 AD"? Pyrotec (talk) 07:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• I never even noticed this, thanks for pointing it out! It was definitely 1308, yet the source uses the word "septisme", which means "seventh". I believe this is because they are talking about the legal year, which started on 25 March, so while the Christian year was 1308, the legal year was still 1307. I'll just relegate the whole thing to a footnote, to avoid confusion. Lampman (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A well-referenced article

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quality of the article, I'm awarding GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)