Talk:Aymer de Valence, 2nd Earl of Pembroke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Aymer de Valence, 2nd Earl of Pembroke has been listed as one of the History 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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
May 26, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
June 3, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
March 15, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted
August 31, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

Good Article nomination has failed[edit]

The Good article nomination for Aymer de Valence, 2nd Earl of Pembroke has failed, for the following reason:

It looks good but the lead section needs to summarise the article's content. At the moment it's too short. See WP:LEAD. Worldtraveller 13:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination[edit]

I fixed a small spelling error,but I have one concern the references to king should not the k be capatilized such that the word appears as King Gnangarra 11:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I checked out Featured Article Henry VIII of England in this the use of King whether it refers to him is predecessor or Frenh King they are all Capatilized. Gnangarra 12:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style: "Titles such as...king...start with a capital letter when used as a title (followed by a name)...When used generically, they should be in lower case...". There was only one case of this in the article; King John, and I've fixed that (King John is normally styled as such because he has no numeral, and 'John' could cause confusion. With the others - Henry III, Edward I, Edward II - 'King' is redundant.)
I think this is a minor concern though, and shouldn't affect the nomination. Eixo 12:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

GA Promotion[edit]

Congratulations to all the editors of this article Gnangarra 12:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Oh, and Henry VIII of England wasn't quite consistant with the rule, so I fixed that. Eixo 12:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
sorry didnt mean to create more work Gnangarra 13:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
No problem, just goes to show that even featured articles aren't always perfect... Eixo 18:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (on hold)[edit]

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

  • The lead needs to be further organised. Two solid paragraphs would be a good idea, with more information on his conflicts with the king and perhaps some coverage of his historiographical legacy.
  • Sourcing. This article's biggest problem is its paucity of sources, several paragraphs are unsourced including information which perhaps should be. The sources are avaliable, they are listed at the bottom of the page. In particular the later life section.
  • It would be a nice addition to see an infobox, perhaps with the shield of arms as the image if no image of the man is avaliable. This would help introduce the man.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are being addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no action for the last two weeks so this is going to be delisted.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aymer de Valence, 2nd Earl of Pembroke/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi there, this article quite comfortably passes GA. I have a couple of suggestions for further development below but congratulations of the new GA.

  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
There are a few instances of colloquial tone in the article but the writing style is in general quite high.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • 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):
I'd be interested in more information on his military career in Scotland at Loudon Hill and Methuven, but overall all aspects are well covered.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  • It is stable.
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

Thankyou.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)