Talk:Hamo (dean of York)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Serial Number 54129 (talk · contribs) 17:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And, again SN54129 17:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Couple of tricky sentences noted below, but we're not looking for "refreshing, brilliant prose" so they needn't impact the article as a whole.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
For the BHO refs, I'd suggest using the minimal page numbers they give, e.g. pp.40-43 for Archdeacons/East Riding.

C. It contains no original research:
Earwig (couple of nouns only) and no google hits.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Not applicable.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Usual non-binding suggestions for future advancement...

Out of curiosity, why do you title him Archdeacon of East Riding rather than Archdeacon of the East Riding, our page's title?
- Source: here Ealdgyth (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"he was last attested as holding his last office, dean" -- suggest "final office", per repetition.
Link Husthwaite.
Likewise Precentor.
Do we know why Hamo claimed to have held the Treasureship if he didn't? What's the context?
- No clue. Just that it happened. Yeah, it's odd, but no clue on why. Welcome to the high middle ages, where things don't HAVE to make sense... or be explained. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "this office" instead of the second treasurership.
"an office he held along with the Archdeaconry of East Riding, a combination of offices that had occurred for over 100 years" -- bit complicated this and the next sentence. I'd suggest something like, "an office he held along with the Archdeaconry of East Riding, as the two had been combined for over 100 years"
"Hamo was the final treasurer to hold the East Riding alongside the treasurership, being last-named in the office in 1216"
"Hamo may have been " --He; "but had certainly been appointed by 1 March 18, when his presence is first documented".
Is sacrist a Sacristan?
King John of England -- King John?
It might be tangential, but perhaps a brief explanatory note on why he might have had a son—to the modern Christian, an (officially, anyway...) unheard-of thing!—but back then, less so. Have a look at note #4 where I dealt with something similar (if slightly later).
SN54129 16:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- I think I got all of the above - I replied inline where appropriate. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Looks good, passing. SN54129 14:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]