Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Ordinances of 1311

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:55, 3 September 2007.

Ordinances of 1311

[edit]

I have created and done most of the work on this article. It has been promoted to GA-status and gone through peer review, and I now believe it is ready for FA-assessment. Lampman 17:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was just me and the receptive language issues that I have sometimes. It made perfect sense the second or third time I read it.--Rmky87 19:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  • "Edward I creating his son - the future Edward II" - en dash needed instead of a hyphen
  • checkY Done Following WP:DASH, I've now consistently used spaced en dash, rather than em dash, throughout the article.


Whole thing needs fixing up in terms of 1a. Like ...

  • ‘shall have chosen’—Read MOS on double quotes.
  • "In order to"—It's not a MOS issue, but why, oh why, include "in order"?
  • I don't mind not using the autoformatting for dates (in fact, I prefer this), but make it consistent (11 October, but Feb 25,).
  • "Ordainers – on 19 March, 1310–[h]"—Dash chaos. Tony 07:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tension between past and present tenses in the lead. And a related note says the Ordainers WERE ...
  • MOS breach in the final period in captions.
  • Superscript reference letter after an en dash?
  • "whether Edward and Gaveston’s relation was of a homosexual nature"—roundabout wording; please write in straightforward language. Tony 11:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Really good article, one of the best I've seen at FAC in a while. I just can't support until the following issues have been addressed:
    • Shouldn't it be "the King" rather than "the king", since it is really referring to the "King of England"?
    • Similarly shouldn't "lieutenant of Ireland" be capitalized?
    • Please adjust the usage of boldface in the lead to comply with WP:MOSBOLD.
    • It seems to me that the lead says a lot about the historical circumstances of and the people involved in the Ordinances, but it tells nothing about what they entailed, except that they "eatured a new concern with fiscal reform, specifically redirecting revenues from the king's household to the exchequer". Could you maybe add a sentence or two explaining the changes they were supposed to bring about.
    • "Much speculation has centred around whether Edward and Gaveston’s relation was of a homosexual nature. An in-depth discussion of this issue – and an alternative view – is presented by P. Chaplais." An alternative to what? Does Chaplais argue that the two were homosexual or not?
    • "The articles can be divided into different groups, the largest of which dealts with limitations on the powers of the king and his officials, and the substitution of these powers with baronial control." Sounds like you couldn't decide whether to use past or present tense ;)--Carabinieri 02:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you fix the page ranges in the notes? pp. 527–539, then 182–3 and a problematic 12–7, which I guess means 12–17. Abbreviation to one closing digit can be a problem, and unfortunately wasn't covered by our recent overhaul of dashes, as it was for year ranges. Two digits is fine, consistently, as an abbreviation. Tony 05:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/New_Ordinances_of_1311&oldid=155357879"