Talk:John of Tynemouth (canon lawyer)/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Canadian Paul 21:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I will be reviewing this article in the near future, hopefully later today. Canadian Paul 21:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
...and here it is:
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- Under "Legal career", second paragraph: "In 1203 John was employed in pleading at Rome on Walter's behalf in a case against Gerald of Wales." Since you just mentioned two "Walters" in the previous paragraph, it is not immediately clear to which you are referring in this sentence.
- Same section, fourth paragraph: "In 1203 the medieval chronicler Thomas of Marlborough, who was a monk of Evesham Abbey, pled a case for Evesham before Archbishop Walter" has the same problem.
- Same paragraph: "He also described the three men as magistri mei in scholis." A footnote with an explanation, or even a translation, might be helpful here to explain the significance of this to the uninformed reader (such as myself).
Other than that, I didn't find any issue with the article. It's a bit short and lacks any images but, considering the nature of the subject, that's hardly surprising and certainly not an impediment to a GA pass. In fact, after these clarification issues, we should be good to go! I saw your notice about being away, so if you need more than the standard seven days to address these issues, just give me a heads up on my talk page. Canadian Paul 01:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Shouldn't be an issue, should be able to get to these this evening after dinner... we're heading out tomorrow but would be in a place with confirmed internet by Wed night (grins). I'm leaving the wild west behind and heading towards civilization. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Should have handled all of these ... let me know if you think there is something else...Ealdgyth - Talk 02:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Everything looks good now, so I'll be passing the article! Congratulations and thank you for your hard work... on to the next one now for me! Canadian Paul 17:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)