Talk:Humphrey de Bohun, 3rd Earl of Hereford/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
review initiated. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of June 5, 2009, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: needs copy editing for clarity and smoother prose; I made some punctuation, grammar and syntax changes, and smoothed out a few rough edges, but it needs more.

2. Factually accurate?: Once the syntactic problems are resolved, it should sound more accurate; I suspect it is accurate, but the mixing of Humphreys makes it difficult to follow

3. Broad in coverage?: YES!!

4. Neutral point of view?: YES!!

5. Article stability? Yes! Nice work, on salvaging the old article.

6. Images?: yes.

needs additional editing/clean up, especially clarification of such jargon as so and so was forfeit.

1. Although all those humphreys makes text confusing, it needs greater clarification. I tried to fix some of it, but I don't know the period well enough.
2. also, lead is probably longer and more detailed than it needs to be. Reduce some of the detail; lead should have enough detail to set up the article, but the specifics should be in the article itself.
3. could we have a bibliography section?

   Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to do this? I realize real life sometimes gets in the way of wikilife, but these problems are minor and would need only a quick fix. If you don't make the time before Wednesday July 1, I'm going to remove it from the Good article nom list (fail), and you can try again another time. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience, I hope the changes meet with your approval. I've shortened the lede and included a bibliography. To avoid confusion between the Humphreys I've consistently added roman numerals, so they can be told apart. It makes the text a bit repetitive, but hopefully clearer. Lampman (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   I don't see any way around the awkwardness of Humphrey(IV,V,VI); it's not perfect but until we think of a better solution this one will have to do.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Nice job. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)