Talk:William Edington

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article William Edington 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
September 22, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
June 29, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 4, 2006.
Current status: Good article

GA status[edit]

I see some problems here that should be fixed. As this is a short article, it is possible to get these fixed during the “On hold” window of seven days.

1. It is well written
To fix
The lead section states that his reforms “contributed to the English military efficiency in the early stages of the Hundred Years' War”. As the lead section is a summary of the article, there should be a reference to the Hundred Years’ War somewhere in the main sections. I believe that was intended in the phrase “intense war efforts of the last few years”. However, I wasn’t sure. Perhaps you could say “intense efforts of the Hundred Years’ War”? Also when was he born? If unknown, one could state this (b. unknown - d. October 6, 1366). There are also dead Wikilinks. Stubs should be written for them or they should be left as normal text.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
To fix
The phrase “The king must have been impressed” sounds like an opinion so it should be cited.
3. It is broad in its coverage.
Pass
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Pass
5. It is stable
Pass
6. It contains images
To fix
The first image should have a fair-use rationale. Also it should state the source and author of the image.

I have put the article on hold to let you make the changes before promoting the article to GA status. RelHistBuff 08:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for constructive criticism. I’ve addressed your concerns, with one exception. The form (d. October 6, 1366) I believe is self-explanatory to mean that date of birth is unknown. This is also the accepted form according to the manual of style, so I haven’t changed this. Eixo 15:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Great and thanks for MoS note. It has been promoted. RelHistBuff 19:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:William Edington/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I will do the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project.

The article remains good. I would like to see more in-line citations at the end of the final section of the article. But otherwise the information is sufficient, the lead is good, references are formatted properly and credible. Images and lead are also good. I will keep the article at GA with the hope that references can be added to the last couple of paragraphs. H1nkles (talk) 06:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, just became aware of this. I've been wanting to add some references for a while, as it's quite a while ago that it was promoted. Give me a few days and I'll see what I can do! Lampman (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)