Jump to content

Talk:Urse d'Abetot/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I'm Mm40 and I'll be reviewing the article. Mm40 (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]

Just a few things I noticed upon first reading through it:

  • In "children" in the infobox, the second link is to a novel. I assume this link is incorrect, and should probably be removed.
  • In the last line of the lead, you should link to the Beauchamp family that is being referred to.
  • First sentence of "Background", the second "his" can be removed, but more importantly, can you elaborate more on "his military reputation", or is that not covered in any of the sources?
  • Removed the "his" (although I think it reads better with it, flows better) added a bit about Loyd calling him a soldier of fortune. Nothing I have gives more than "military reputation" outside of the original primary sources (which I don't have access to at the moment). In any case, it's from William of Malmesbury's Gesta Pontificum so it's probably a long line of ways he did things wrong for the church (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the image caption, should "Chateau" be "Château" with the accent? I know there isn't an article for the link, but it seems all similar articles have the accent.
  • In the sentence beginning "Urse's actions kept the rebels from seizing the Valley...", what valley is being referred to (sorry for my potential ignorance)?
  • Severn Valley. I thought it was clear from the previous bit but that's what happens when you're so close to the article, you don't see the bits that are murky. Thanks for finding that! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last paragraph of "Background", someone named Ealdred is talked about but not introduced or linked to earlier in the article.
  • Fix the one disambiguation link at here.

I will go over the other two sections of prose after these issues have been addressed. Mm40 (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll dig out the info needed for these in the morning. Had dinner guests and I'm too tired to do serious research. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. This is your GAN, I'm willing to accommodate you. Mm40 (talk) 11:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the review of the rest of the text (Service, Death/legacy, citations, and references)

  • First paragraph of "Service to William II and Henry I": There seems to be an extra comma between "larger in 1100" and "than they were in 1087".
  • "Urse also served as a royal judge" do you have a reference for this?
  • It's covered by the next citation. The two sentences - starting with this one and the one following that starts "The historian Emma Mason..." are both sourced to the citation at the end of the second sentence. This is normal for FA level articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two sentences of "Death and legacy" need a reference (one will do for both sentences). If these sentences are proven in another reference, feel free to re-use it.
  • In the sentence beginning "Another brother was", why are their two links if both refer to the same person?
  • Last sentence of the first paragraph of "Death and legacy" needs clarification: A daughter of who may have married Robert Marmion? Urse, or one of his sons?
  • Something else I noticed about the "Background and sheriff" section: While the infobox says he became sheriff around 1066, the first sentence of the second paragraph says "around 1069". While I know an exact date is impossible to find, both should be consistent.
  • Under "Service", where it says his lands grew after 1087, you should say that 1087 was when he was named Royal constable.
  • Clarified in the infobox, all we know is that he was constable sometime after 1087, when William II became king. We don't know if it was early or late in the reign. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nitpick in "Citations": I guess reference 26 has "p. 71 and footnote 1" because both the page and the footnote prove the statement, while in refs 9 (p. 60 footnote 67) and 20 (p. 169 footnote 137), are proven by the footnote on the page number given, right? (Sorry if I'm unclear)
  • The ISBN of Domesday People: A Prosopography of Persons Occurring in English Documents, 1066–1166: Domesday Book isn't working
  • In the sixth and seventh references given, both are by the same person. However, the name is presented two different ways.
  • Are the fourth and fifth references given in the correct order? (I'm unsure because I don't know which takes priority; year or title).

*Not in the article, but can you fix the GA hook on the talk page? I would, but I'm not sure what it was.

After these issues are fixed, I'll probably pass the article. I have it on my watchlist, and I'm giving you seven days. Also, as this is my first GA review, may I ask you how I did? I feel like my standards were too high (my other article reviews have been FAs, so I'm unsure about this). Cheers. Mm40 (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the one thing you'll need to slack a bit is the nitpicky MOS stuff. I usually just fix it myself in GA reviews (like the extra comma) All the substantive content comments are excellent, and needed. ISBNs aren't going to be a big deal at GA (and you need to do more than just check for Google, you need to check World Cat too. World Cat is actually better, because it'll tell you what libraries hold the work, which gives you important clues about how reliable the work might be. (If no libraries hold it, it just might be a bad source!) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't exclusively use Google Books to check ISBNs, I just happened to click on it when checking the book I named (guess now I know why WorldCat is listed first!). This seems to be of GA quality. I feel like it could be expanded a bit more, but it seems comprehensive enough for GA. It's a good thing my first review was with an informed editor like you, and congratulations. Mm40 (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Urse_d%27Abetot/GA1&oldid=291039613"