Talk:Lady of the Forest

Lady of the Forest has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 9, 2013. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Lady of the Forest appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 August 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in her 1992 Robin Hood novel Lady of the Forest, Jennifer Roberson sought to depict how seven "very different" people would come together to fight the "inequities of medieval England"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/August. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lady of the Forest.

Wikipedia

Novels

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lady of the Forest/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 12:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ruby, I'll be glad to take this one. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks as always for your contributions! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall this looks like your usual terrific work, and is more or less ready to pass. I've made a few tweaks as I went; feel free to revert any with which you disagree. I have a few suggestions below, but I don't think there's much work to be done here.

"having flashbacks to Sir Hugh's violent murder" -- can you clarify who Sir Hugh is? ("his friend Sir Hugh's" perhaps?)
"a rabid man" -- this threw me for a moment--does he literally have rabies? Or do you just mean in the sense of frenzied/angry?
The discussion in the "Analysis" section is slightly confusing. The footnotes show that Knight's comments are taken from a variety of sources, which is fine, but the in-text description (" In a chapter of Icons of the Middle Ages: Rulers, Writers, Rebels, and Saints"... " Knight continues that "...) implies a continuous line of reasoning from a single source. Can this be cleaned up a bit?
I cut the "prominent" from "prominent scholar" as a minor bit of peacocking per WP:PEA
The two uses of "noted" in the section should probably be reworded per WP:WTW -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"entirely her own concoction." -- is this correct that Roberson refers to herself in the third person here? -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	~~Minor clarity points above~~
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	~~Minor WP:WTW points above~~
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Google and Highbeam checks suggest that it covers available information
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA

Thank you for the review! I believe I have addressed all of your concerns (I opted for "enraged" as a replacement for "rabid," and hopefully the analysis section looks better). Ruby 2010/2013 00:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that'll do it--thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for reviewing this and others! Keep up the good work! Ruby 2010/2013 01:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]