Talk:Osbert de Bayeux/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Canadian Paul 17:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this article in the near future, hopefully tomorrow. Canadian Paul 17:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is!

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Under "Poisoning accusations", first paragraph: "Osbert was accused of murdering William, by placing poison in the communion chalice." The way that is written, it makes it sound like the way in which the accusation happened was by placing poison in the communion chalice. Could you rework this sentence a bit?

Try "Osbert was accused of murdering William, specifically by poisoning him through the communion chalice."? It seemed clear to me, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same paragraph, "A fellow cleric, Symphorian, who had been a chaplain of the deceased archbishop, brought charges against Osbert, accusing him of murder and obtaining a hearing on the charges at a royal council presided over by King Stephen of England at Michaelmas in 1154, but Stephen's subsequent death prevented a resolution." is way too long of a sentence and needs to be split into two - it's currently very difficult to read.

reworded. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, everything looks good! As usual, I'll be placing the article on hold for up to seven days! Canadian Paul 05:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good now - what threw me off about #1 was the comma - if I had just removed it, it would have been fine. Not all days are winning ones for me, haha. Anyways, the article now meets the GA criteria in my opinion and will be passed as such. Once again, congratulations and thank you for your hard work. Canadian Paul 04:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]