Talk:Sibyl of Falaise

Sibyl of Falaise 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.
Review: February 22, 2022. (Reviewed version).

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 15:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which "King Henry"? And can we link him.
Link Anglo-Norman,
"likely that Sibyl was the daughter of Henry's elder brother Robert Curthose". Legitimate or illegitimate?
"Sibyl was just a "kinswoman" of Henry's". I don't think that the possessive is necessary, as =you already cover it with the use of "of".
The lead says she "was an Anglo-Norman noblewoman", the article mentions neither of these.
"Lead: "She was either his illegitimate daughter or a niece". The article discusses other options.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- I should have gotten all of those - I hate not being able to state the obvious - she was "Anglo-Norman" but I cannot find a single source that bothers to state that. And she was a noblewoman ... as someone who was titled "kinswoman" of a king, but again, this is so obvious that no one bothers to say it in print. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Just chiming in as a non-involved editor, neither "Anglo-Norman" nor "noblewoman" are the slightest bit controversial. She's (probably?) the daughter of one of William the Conqueror's sons - can't get much more Anglo-Norman than that. If we can't call her Anglo-Norman we should also stop saying "so-and-so is a French (insert occupation)" when the sources say "so-and-so was born in Paris to French parents in 1864". -- asilvering (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like Asilvering I am entirely relaxed as to whether you cite this statement of the obvious or not, but it needs stating in either both the lead and the body or neither. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed