Talk:Empress Matilda/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Lankiveil (talk · contribs) 01:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Summary: Article is of a high quality and only needs a couple of minor adjustments to be passed. Below is an assessment against each of the Good Article criteria:
1) Well Written:
- There were a few very minor copyediting issues which I have corrected. In general the article is well written, flows nicely for the most part, and doesn't have any serious grammar or style problems. See my comments below for further suggestions on this point.
2) Verifiable with no original research:
- The article is extensively referenced and a comprehensive bibliography is provided. Not all sources are online (which is not usually a problem), but some are provided, especially Chibnall, which is used extensively.
3) Broad in its coverage:
- The article is comprehensive, but not weighed down by unnecessary detail.
4) Neutral
- There are no obvious POV problems. A summary of views of Matilda's reign, both positive and negative, and contemporary and modern, is provided.
5) Stable
- Apart from the expansion by User:Hchc2009, the article has been stable for the best part of a year.
6) Illustrated, if possible, by images:
- The article is well illustrated with free images. No fair use. Some of the images have technically incomplete {{PD-Art}} tags, but given their origin in the 12th century they are clearly now out of copyright.
Suggested Improvements:
As stated above, this article is already 99% of the way there. A few suggestions I'd like you to consider:
- Henry V is referred to in many of the sources as "Heinrich V". While WP:COMMONNAME applies, it may be useful to mention that he's known by the other name somewhere to prevent confusion. There are already too many Henries in English history!
- I'm not sure I agree with you on this one - he's wikilinked, and there are a lot of characters in this period with alternative spellings. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- The caption beginning "Political map of Wales and southern England" is a bit clunky. Could this be rewritten, either by getting rid of the equals signs, or adding line breaks? It would also be helpful for the reader to know what you mean by "indigenous Welsh" in this context.
- Tweaked - see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- It might be a good idea to move the "Death" section immediately under "Later life". At present we move from a chronological history, then to an analysis, back to a chronological history for a bit, and then back to more analysis. Either the "Matilda as ruler" or "Death" sections should be moved to improve the flow.
- Agree, a good idea. Changed accordingly. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- There are some circular redirects, please correct these.
- I'm sure I can identify this - are you sure its not getting a false positive on the cite web title? Hchc2009 (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Once the above issues are resolved I think this is ready for GA. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC).
- Cheers - will tackle these tomorrow night. Thanks Lankiveil. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- No worries. I see quite a bit of work has been done on the article already. I'll be away from the Internet until the middle of next week, but will catch up and re-look at this (and hopefully pass it) when I return. Lankiveil (speak to me) 22:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC).
- I'm back at home now, and thankyou for making these changes. I notice there's been a fair few new edits put onto the article since my review, I will re-review (hopefully tomorrow) to make sure that these are all acceptable and if so, tick this one off as completed. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC).
- Thanks Laniveil. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've had a look at the other changes made during this period and for the most part they're only copyedits and are fine. I would like to see a citation in the new and expanded "Family Tree" section though, which might be able to be reconstructed via original research but it would be preferable not to do this. There seems to be plenty of trees in Google Image Search which confirm what's in the article, but none of them seem to be from a reliable source. Once resolved, I will pass this article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC).
- Reference added. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- I've had a look at the other changes made during this period and for the most part they're only copyedits and are fine. I would like to see a citation in the new and expanded "Family Tree" section though, which might be able to be reconstructed via original research but it would be preferable not to do this. There seems to be plenty of trees in Google Image Search which confirm what's in the article, but none of them seem to be from a reliable source. Once resolved, I will pass this article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC).
- Thanks Laniveil. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm back at home now, and thankyou for making these changes. I notice there's been a fair few new edits put onto the article since my review, I will re-review (hopefully tomorrow) to make sure that these are all acceptable and if so, tick this one off as completed. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC).