Talk:Richard III of England/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 17:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Beginning first read-through. More soonest. From a swift once-over think I have a treat in store for me. Tim riley talk 17:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't let it spoil your weekend though... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Review

There is much good material in this article, and I found it highly enjoyable, well written and convincing, but it is not within striking distance of GA standard. I am afraid it comprehensively falls short of one of the six GA criteria – WP:VERIFIABILITY – because of the persistent lack of citations for your statements: *Marriage and family relationships

• • First para is mostly without references
  • Second para has none
  • Fifth and sixth paras – far too many statements lacking citations, most glaringly, perhaps, "There is no evidence of Richard's involvement in George's subsequent conviction and execution on a charge of treason."
• Estates and titles
  • Mostly unreferenced
• Accession
  • Third para – no citations
  • Fourth para – ditto
• Rebellion of 1483
  • Second para – no citations
  • Third para – ditto
• Death at the Battle of Bosworth Field
  • First para – mostly uncited
  • Second para – final sentences uncited
• Succession
  • First para – no citations
• Legacy
  • First para – no citations
  • Third para – no citations
• In culture
  • Second para – no citations
  • Third para – no citations
  • Fifth para – no citations

I am failing the nomination, but I hope you will address this problem of wholesale lack of citations and re-nominate the article in due course. There are some other points that need addressing, including some incidental errors of fact, but nothing that can't be fixed during a WP:Peer review and/or a second nomination for GAN. My advice is that once you have fixed all the missing references you take the article to peer review before putting it up again for GAN: the input of other editors is of great help in getting an article up to standard. – Tim riley talk 19:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)