Talk:Elias Beckingham/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 14:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- Early life:
- Ideally we'd have a citation for the information on his sister?
Done- it was cobered by the ODNB ref; added info on her children.
- Judicial career:
- Instead of "during the King's absence in Gascony" ... can we say who the king was? We never are told what kings he's working for, which leads to a feeling that he's kinda floating out of touch with the rest of the kingdom.
- Done
- Relations:
- "Abbey" or "abbey" - you use both in the first sentence of this section, and again later with the sentence starting "For example, in 1288..."
- "when the Abbey found itself in dispute with the bishop of Lincoln and other" which bishop?
- Done- replaced all with uppercase 'A'- but would it be a personal noun?
- References:
- We need more publication details on the work in which the Brand "Chief Justice" article appears
- Done
- The Maitland source is a reprint. I know this because Frederic William Maitland died in 1906 ... so he can't have published something in 2012. It would be helpful if the original publication date was included in the information.
Done Well spotted, today's trick question ;) bit of a naughty reprint on CUP's part really.
- Settle on either giving the authors for references in the form "last name, first name" or "first name last name" - you do both.
- Done
- Image is good. I googled three random sentences and they only appeared on Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violations.
- I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for this Ealdgyth; think I've fixed those (although see a couple of remarks above). Thanks very much for doing this. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 15:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- Looks good, passing this now. And here I thought I was the only person editing on obscure English clergy.... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- Cheers, your health. What got me onto this chap was this; someone gave it candidature for the lamest infobox ever on Iridescent's talk. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 16:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- Looks good, passing this now. And here I thought I was the only person editing on obscure English clergy.... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)