Talk:English invasion of Scotland (1385)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) 16:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll start this in a day or two. auntieruth (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 ok, this definitely needs an info box. It can be brief .... I know you think they are political, but for the sake of summary of the invasion, please add one. Usage of infoboxes is detailed at Templates auntieruth (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, Serial number 54129, I would really encourage you to add an infobox. An article without one is like a book without table of contents. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

+1 for an infobox - ^theWOLFchild 15:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

1. This also needs a good copy edit. I've done half of it, here please review for clarity and to make sure I haven't upset the facts. You can do the rest.
2. links on historians where applicable.
3. ideally, duplicate the links onhistorians in the bib auntieruth (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Will you be responding to these comments? auntieruth (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Auntieruth55: Thank you for this, indeed. Well: I've continued your copy-edit, and linked a couple more historians. Not sure what you mean, link them in the bibliography—is that a thing?Pplease to advise. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Much better. Found a couple of typos, and some confusion, but otherwise it looks good. I think your boxes with quotes would be made clearer by identifying in the box the source (in addition to the footnote). That way it's completely clear that you're citing historiography rather than some contemporary participant. also, Info box is still needed. Please.  :) auntieruth (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't too sure what you meant by sources in the quote boxes (not helped I know by the fact that a couple of them didn't even have citations); have a look and see if that's anywhere close to what you were thinking).

Regarding the bloody box. How will it address this point, made when you...brought it up at Milhist  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Forgot to ping Auntieruth55. Always feels wierd typing that, maybe that's why  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 06:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

LOL, I'm not going to fall on the sword over the box, although I think it would be useful as a visual summary. I find my students respond well to visual as well as textual summaries, that's all. This is a nicely written article. Good job. auntieruth (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Not falling on the sword, John of Gaunt would approve Auntieruth55 Nice one, thanks. If I can find anyone intersetde in Oldhattery such as this, it would do OK at PR methinks. In other news—look: in the spirit of compromise, if someone comes along and sticks one on, I wouldn't object. No OWN here. Take care!* —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

*Notwithstanding that we're going to have to dance the same tango at John Fresshe soon enough, I imagine :p

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

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 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: