![]() | Ordinances of 1311 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 25, 2007. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Only two reasons appear to have been supplied... —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieRCD ( talk • contribs) 13:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I've reviewed this article and I found it to be rather close to GA status in its coverage of the topic, its prose, and its scholarly citations. Two things: the lead section needs a rework. It is much too long and too specific and doesn't quite explain the notability of the subject. What is important to mention in the lead, I think, is that the Ordinances was one of the first attempts to change the King's powers and that, unlike the Magna Carta, included specific administrative reforms (Royal household's use of purveyances,etc.). Second, is this unsourced sentence NPOV?: "In the preamble, concern is voiced with the evil councillors of the king, the precariousness of the military situation abroad, and the danger of rebellion at home over the oppressive prises". I'd like to see it rephrased to make it clear that those were the opinions of the Ordainers or a citation for less subjective version of the sentence,etc. That's about all.-- Meowist 18:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I made a slight rewording of the lead. I'm passing it now. -- Meowist 22:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I tried a little copy editing of the beginning to try to clarify for myself who was doing what in the article. I probably used the wrong words and made mistakes. Feel free to change or revert. Sincerely, Mattisse 23:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was Move. — Wknight94 ( talk) 01:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
New Ordinances of 1311 → Ordinances of 1311 — they are widely known in English history as the Ordinances of 1311 — Ewlyahoocom 17:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.I originally moved this page from Ordinances of 1311 to New Ordinances of 1311 because the bolded term used in the lede was New Ordinances of 1311 and has been that way since the page was created. Nowhere in the article is the term "Ordinances of 1311" used except for the title of one of the references. I don't care one way or the other, but I thought they should match. Ewlyahoocom 17:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
From User_talk:Ewlyahoocom#New_Ordinances_of_1311:
Why the name change? I can't see any discussion of it at the article talk page. -- Dweller 21:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
From User_talk:Clio_the_Muse#Ordinances:
I noticed that they're up at WP:FAC. Then I noticed... well, see this thread. User_talk:Ewlyahoocom#New_Ordinances_of_1311. Cheers, -- Dweller 21:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Are there Old Ordinances of 1311 or Original Ordinances of 1311? In other words, are you distinguishing these ordinances from another set of ordinances of 1311 with which they could be confused? -- Mattisse 17:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Seems very odd that the article mentions the problems of Gaveston as favourite, without even a reference to allegations that Edward and Gaveston were lovers. -- Dweller ( talk) 13:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() | Ordinances of 1311 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 25, 2007. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Only two reasons appear to have been supplied... —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieRCD ( talk • contribs) 13:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I've reviewed this article and I found it to be rather close to GA status in its coverage of the topic, its prose, and its scholarly citations. Two things: the lead section needs a rework. It is much too long and too specific and doesn't quite explain the notability of the subject. What is important to mention in the lead, I think, is that the Ordinances was one of the first attempts to change the King's powers and that, unlike the Magna Carta, included specific administrative reforms (Royal household's use of purveyances,etc.). Second, is this unsourced sentence NPOV?: "In the preamble, concern is voiced with the evil councillors of the king, the precariousness of the military situation abroad, and the danger of rebellion at home over the oppressive prises". I'd like to see it rephrased to make it clear that those were the opinions of the Ordainers or a citation for less subjective version of the sentence,etc. That's about all.-- Meowist 18:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I made a slight rewording of the lead. I'm passing it now. -- Meowist 22:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I tried a little copy editing of the beginning to try to clarify for myself who was doing what in the article. I probably used the wrong words and made mistakes. Feel free to change or revert. Sincerely, Mattisse 23:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was Move. — Wknight94 ( talk) 01:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
New Ordinances of 1311 → Ordinances of 1311 — they are widely known in English history as the Ordinances of 1311 — Ewlyahoocom 17:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.I originally moved this page from Ordinances of 1311 to New Ordinances of 1311 because the bolded term used in the lede was New Ordinances of 1311 and has been that way since the page was created. Nowhere in the article is the term "Ordinances of 1311" used except for the title of one of the references. I don't care one way or the other, but I thought they should match. Ewlyahoocom 17:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
From User_talk:Ewlyahoocom#New_Ordinances_of_1311:
Why the name change? I can't see any discussion of it at the article talk page. -- Dweller 21:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
From User_talk:Clio_the_Muse#Ordinances:
I noticed that they're up at WP:FAC. Then I noticed... well, see this thread. User_talk:Ewlyahoocom#New_Ordinances_of_1311. Cheers, -- Dweller 21:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Are there Old Ordinances of 1311 or Original Ordinances of 1311? In other words, are you distinguishing these ordinances from another set of ordinances of 1311 with which they could be confused? -- Mattisse 17:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Seems very odd that the article mentions the problems of Gaveston as favourite, without even a reference to allegations that Edward and Gaveston were lovers. -- Dweller ( talk) 13:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)