Talk:Joanna I of Naples/GA1
GA Review
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 09:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- General
- Info box
- For the Born and Died parameters, you need to list the country in addition to the city. Also the place (building) too if possible.
- What was her religion?
- Lead
- She also reigned as Princess of Achaea → reigned implies that she was Princess regnant?
- During her long reign → During her 39 year reign
- The lead feels far too short. It doesn't cover anything she did in her life apart from being married four times, and even then, it doesn't say who. For an article of this length and detail, I'd expect to see perhaps three paragraphs of about 4 sentences each. I'd follow Elizabeth I of England as an example of this.
- Life
- a sister of King → Younger? Elder?
- so at birth she was the second in line to the throne after her father, → meaning that she was second in line to the throne at the time of her birth after her father,
- had predeceased her, so at birth she was the second in line to the throne after her father, who died on 9 November 1328,[2] leaving his wife pregnant with their fifth child, who was another daughter, Maria, born in May 1329. → This is quite a difficult sentence to read because there are so many commas breaking it up.
- Where did her father die and why?
- Marie of Valois also died → remove 'also'. Unless she also died at that Pilgrimage?
- With the death of his only surviving son (his second son Louis, was already dead in 1310), King Robert faced the serious problem of his succession: → Who was the only surviving son?
- I'm losing track of who is who. I think you are best to list all of the children first, and then when they died. It's really hard to keep up with who is who and when they died.
- to chose between → typo, should be 'choose'
- The second paragraph is completely unsourced (and is the third)
- decided to impose his direct rule by sending a Legate, Cardinal Aimery de Châtelus. → What is this?
- This section could be just three paragraphs. Four and five could be merged as one.
- Murder of Andrew of Hungary
- Formatting is quite bad. There are one/two sentence paragraphs. Paragraphs should be about 4, maybe 5, sentences long.
- Almost immediately, → immediately after what?
- Pretty much all of this section is unsourced. Several paragraphs have no citations at all.
- I'm actually finding this really difficult to read. It hasn't been written clearly and it's hard to know what is happening.
- General
The flow of this article is really bad. It's difficult to read and for me at least, it's not clear. I'm confused and what is happening when and where. The are major sourcing issues. Pretty much all of the paragraphs have no citations at all, whereas there should be citations at the end of every sentence really. It makes it look like a lot of it is [{WP:OR]]. Formatting wise, there are so many breaks and pauses because the paragraphs are so short, one or two sentences in a lot of cases. Paragraphs should be four of five sentences long. It makes the entire article look disjointed and unnecessarily long. The article length could be reduced by half if it was just formatted properly paragraph wise, then a load of white and blank space could be removed. Also, there are far too many sub sections and sub-sub sections, and they are really short. There is no need here for a section within a sub section within a section. Keep sub sections to a minimum if possible, because otherwise it ends up having so many bolded section titles and it's disjointing.
I've stopped reviewing half way through the Murder of Andrew of Hungary of section because there are just so many issues, a lot of them occur throughout the article. This article needs major work. It definitely has the information and scope to be a great article, but it is nowhere hear there yet. I really do think you should use Elizabeth I of England, which is an FA, as a guide to formatting and structuring. When you are done, I would recommend listing it for a Peer Review, so that other editors (who may or may not have an interest in royal or historical figures), can help you with suggestions and ideas further. Until then, I'm afraid I'm failing the article on the grounds of inefficient sourcing, poor formatting, awkward structure and lack of clarity. I wish you luck with it though, it has great potential. — ₳aron 17:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)