Talk:England/GA1

GA Review

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

Introduction

Hello! I'm weebiloobil, and I'm here to review England (no, not the country, the article!) with respect to the Good Article criteria. I'll be back with the review shortly. Feel free to contact me if you have any comments, questions or compliments. Good bye, and good luck! - weebiloobil (talk) 13:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Reviewed version

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Not the "brilliant" of the FAC, but close

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Although the majority is well-sourced, there are some passages without (eg most of 'Medieval England'

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   I like the random sheep in the Borrowdale and North York Moors pictures

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   You have a fantastic article! Just add more references - as there are, at the moment, several paragraphs without references - and this article will pass with flying colours - weebiloobil (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Aah, the improvements you've doen are good enough for GA standard. If you want to improve it further, the 'Education' and 'Christianity' sections could do with a few more references - weebiloobil (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and your flying colours:

Infobox - Coat of Arms

From what I have read, there is no present Royal Coat of Arms of England; that displayed in the info-box being an early example of the archaic Royal Coat of Arms of the Kingdom of England. Why is this being used in the info-box of the article concerning the modern country of England? This shield has not been used in any official capacity for centuries, yet it is being incorrectly displayed as the contemporary coat of arms of England, (the country within the United Kingdom), which does not have a coat of arms or any other currently-used heraldic emblem that indisputedly is of/for England, and only England; the shield depicting only the three lions passant guardant in pale in itself having no contemporary, authorised or even commonplace usage. Instead of displaying an anachronism, why not copy the Wales article and show only the flag of England? Endrick Shellycoat 13:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done Cheers. I'^mperator 15:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)