Jump to content

Talk:John Mowbray, 2nd Duke of Norfolk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:John Mowbray, 2nd Duke of Norfolk/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 16:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Initial comments

[edit]

I'll comment on the content once the English is attended to. At a first glance I spotted 24 spelling mistakes:

  • geat
  • campaining
  • stil
  • relatvely
  • likkely
  • patrimonal
  • exatant
  • conspiritors
  • recouperated
  • Chrstmas
  • accompanyng
  • Mowbrays
  • enthusiam
  • amonst
  • nbility
  • frst
  • stuill
  • momment
  • governement
  • havng
  • spet
  • aygmenting
  • hiis, and
  • particuipate.

As a rule I correct the odd typo when I'm reviewing, but this is wholesale stuff, and needs attention. There may be other misspellings I have not spotted in my first perusal, so please check the text carefully. Tim riley talk 16:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Thanks for this. I've addressed the typos and other tweaks (hopefully caught them all), but am on a mobile device with a wildly changeable internet service, so any major work might have to wait until I'm back at a desk, if that's ok? Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 03:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Tim riley whose name I disgracefully spelt wrongly even whilst claiming to have caught all the typos! — fortunavelut luna 04:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on your talk page, I'm happy to wait till you're back from your holiday. I haven't put a pending tag on this page, and there's no particular deadline. Tim riley talk 17:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tim, am back as of now. Hope all's well! — fortunavelut luna 12:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good hols, I hope. Very few substantive points to raise.

  • There are some single quotes that should be double to conform with the Wikipedia manual of style.
  • There is inconsistent capitalisation of dukedoms and earldoms - "earl of Norfolk to Duke of Norfolk" in the lead and many similar inconsistencies in the main text - earl of Arundel, Earl of Cambridge, earl of Worcester etc. The MoS ruling as I understand it is that it's the Duke of Placename, but dukes of Placename and when unplacenamed just the duke or dukes. Ditto for other peers.
  • Your ulc policy has gone berserk in the subheadings: "With the duke of Gloucester" and "Under henry VI".
  • In the Character section the mention of M's "most recent biographer" calls out for her name to be added inline.
  • HOPE in citation one should be in ulc.

Not much to cause alarm and despondency there. If you attend to these minor points we can proceed to the ribbon-cutting ceremony, Tim riley talk 20:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim riley, I will attend to them 'on the morrow'- but, quickly- "ulc policy"? Can you remnd me...? Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 20:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah- something to do with upper / lower case? — fortunavelut luna 20:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The manual of style bids us change words in ALL CAPITALS to upper and lower case (ulc). TIME Magazine comes up a lot, and some of its devotees bridle at demoting the caps to ulc. Tim riley talk 20:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I have addressed your points Tim riley... The only question being as to whether to your satisfaction! Thanks for doing this, — fortunavelut luna 08:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid. No difficulty with this review...

Overall summary

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Well referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well referenced.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Well illustrated.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well illustrated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

A pleasure to review. Tim riley talk 16:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Mowbray,_2nd_Duke_of_Norfolk&oldid=1245220166"