GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Cerebellum ( talk · contribs) 19:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello! I will be reviewing this article. -- Cerebellum ( talk) 19:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
The prose is excellent, here are few minor quibbles:
This is very good in general, but you might consider adding a "background" section at the beginning of the article to explain what the situation was vis a vis England and the Catholic Church at the time, what there was before there were cardinal protectors, and expound on exactly what cardinal protectors were supposed to do. A lot of this contextual information is in the lead already, but in general things in the lead should be mentioned in the body also. If you move some of the material in the lead to a new background section, you will have more room to briefly summarize the "History" and "Attempts at reconciliation" sections in the lead, since currently they are missing.
I agree with MathewTownsend from the talk page that it would be better if the referencing was more diverse, but of course Wikipedia is limited by what sources are available and there is nothing in the GA criteria prohibiting reliance on a single source. Other than that, you do an exemplary job of citing everything that needs to be cited,
I don't see any problems here. You don't hesitate to use vibrant language, i.e. "short-circuited", but it never seems like you are pushing a particular point of view.
Lots of images, dynamically presented. Excellent job.
This is a fun and intriguing article, very well researched and written. The comments above are suggestions for further improvement, but I am happy to pass this as a GA. Keep up the good work! -- Cerebellum ( talk) 20:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Cerebellum ( talk · contribs) 19:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello! I will be reviewing this article. -- Cerebellum ( talk) 19:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
The prose is excellent, here are few minor quibbles:
This is very good in general, but you might consider adding a "background" section at the beginning of the article to explain what the situation was vis a vis England and the Catholic Church at the time, what there was before there were cardinal protectors, and expound on exactly what cardinal protectors were supposed to do. A lot of this contextual information is in the lead already, but in general things in the lead should be mentioned in the body also. If you move some of the material in the lead to a new background section, you will have more room to briefly summarize the "History" and "Attempts at reconciliation" sections in the lead, since currently they are missing.
I agree with MathewTownsend from the talk page that it would be better if the referencing was more diverse, but of course Wikipedia is limited by what sources are available and there is nothing in the GA criteria prohibiting reliance on a single source. Other than that, you do an exemplary job of citing everything that needs to be cited,
I don't see any problems here. You don't hesitate to use vibrant language, i.e. "short-circuited", but it never seems like you are pushing a particular point of view.
Lots of images, dynamically presented. Excellent job.
This is a fun and intriguing article, very well researched and written. The comments above are suggestions for further improvement, but I am happy to pass this as a GA. Keep up the good work! -- Cerebellum ( talk) 20:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)