Talk:Edward II of England/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 09:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hchc2009, upon my initial review of this fantastic article, I feel that it meets the majority of criteria for Good Article status. I plan on conducting a more comprehensive and thorough Good Article review of this article in the coming days. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. -- Caponer (talk) 09:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): 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:
· · ·

Hchc2009, I have finished conducting a more thorough and comprehensive review of this article, and I have a few minor comments and suggestions below. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this comments. It looks like the article currently meets all the Good Article criteria, so once these have all been addressed, it is good to go for passage to GA status! I cannot stress enough that you have crafted a beautifully-written and well-researched article, Hchc! -- Caponer (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background and Early life (1284–1307)

In the first paragraph of the lead, you may want to add a comma after "In 1308" and other instances when introducing the year in the beginning of the sentence. (For example, "During the 1280s" in the "Background" section).
In the first paragraph of "Background," wikilink "Castilian" to the Kingdom of Castile article.
In the first paragraph of "Background," wikilink historians Michael Prestwich and John Gillingham.
In the first sentence of the first paragraph of the "Childhood, personality and appearance" subsection, you may want to consider only using Edward once in the sentence. In the next sentence, modify "by the Dominican friar" to "by a Dominican friar."
In the second paragraph of "Childhood, personality and appearance", modify "an good rider" to "a good rider."
Wikilink Walter Langton in the third paragraph of the "Early campaigns in Scotland" subsection.
In the fourth paragraph of the "Early campaigns in Scotland" subsection, modify "was saw a punitive, brutal retaliation" to "was seen as a punitive, brutal retaliation" or "saw a punitive, brutal retaliation" depending upon the sentence's intended meaning.

Early reign (1307–11)

In the second paragraph, would it flow better if the marriage between Edward and Isabella "moved forward" rather than "went ahead?"
Wikilink mention of the Treaty of Paris (1303).
Should Robert Winchelsey be named, in addition to mentioning his title, Archbishop of Canterbury?
In the third paragraph of "Tensions over Gaveston", "fresh" is used three times--could alternative adjectives be used as well?
In the second paragraph of "The Ordinances of 1311," should it read "split between reformers and conservatives?"

Mid-reign (1311–21)

Everything in this section looks good to go--great job!

Later reign (1321–26)

In the first paragraph of "War with France," there should probably be a comma placed after "In 1323."
Everything else in this section looks great!

Fall from power (1326–27), Death (1327), Edward as king, and Legacy

No further suggestions.

Issue

Edward's issue should probably be listed in a template similar to those in other Featured and Good Articles, for example: Edward I of England, Edward III of England, Henry VIII of England, etc.

Very many thanks for the careful review - it's improved the text a lot. The only change I haven't made is the final one on issue; there are a couple of variants out here in terms of style, and examples of Featured Articles that use the format in this one include Henry I of England, Henry III of England and Stephen of England. I wouldn't oppose anyone converting between the two, but I'll admit a personal preference for the simpler one! ;) Hchc2009 (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hchc2009, that's definitely not a deal breaker! The issue section will read the same either way; it's just a difference in formatting. Once again, it has sincerely been a pleasure working with you throughout this process. I've been a fan of your work for sometime, and I commend you for all your stellar contributions to Wikipedia. Since this article meets all criteria and you've addressed my concerns and suggestions, I hereby pass this article to Good Article status! -- Caponer (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]