Talk:Parliament of 1327/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) 15:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start this in a couple of days. auntieruth (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Made a couple of tweaks to the lead toclarify who "he" was. Removed duplicated information. Also, I suggest using Infobox Historical Event to summarize the data. It will help to make theplayers and opponents clearer. auntieruth (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
needs infobox.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments

Yo Auntieruth55 many thanks for your tweaks, much appreciate as always. TBH—Infoboxes are a little bit political at the moment aren't they (Read=The most political thing on WP!!!) and I try and avoid radicalism where possible :) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129...really? Info boxes are political? I don't think so. I'll pass it, but....14:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, discretionary sanctions and all that? —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]