Walter de Lacy, Lord of Weobley and Ludlow 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. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
March 14, 2012. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Anglo-Norman nobleman
Walter de Lacy died in 1085 by falling from a scaffold while inspecting the building of
Saint Guthlac's Priory? |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sarastro1 ( talk · contribs) 12:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Marvellous stuff. I could pass it now, very easily, but just a few very minor comments.
Sarastro1 ( talk) 12:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
All good, passing now. Somehow I did not notice the part in "Family" which clearly explains the sons. I think it's time for a holiday... Incidentally, I have no real preference on the "held of" or "held from", but we were usually told to use "from". Doesn't really matter either way, and I have a suspicion that "of" sounds better but may be a little more impenetrable to the ordinary reader. Sarastro1 ( talk) 13:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I have been informed (as a formal warning threatening an editing block, see my talk page) that "it is unacceptable to dump large amounts of inappropriate genealogical detail into articles, yet you continue to do so, as here a few days ago in Walter de Lacy (died 1085) where you have been reverted: [1] by Ealdgyth".
I'm totally bemused. I actually reduced genealogical information by demoting to a note the sentence "A niece was married to Ansfrid de Cormeilles", which I felt was irrelevent, especially as we were not told who "Ansfrid de Cormeilles" is, and there was no link. So prima facie it's not notable. All I did was to rearrange the existing genealogical information into the standard wikipedia format of bullet points for issue/children (is that disallowed?), adding the date of death for the eldest son and heir, and stating that he was the eldest son and heir (is that disallowed?). That's four words, and not "inappropriate", surely entirely relevant. As is standard in thousands of wikipedia biographies. How is that possibly interpreted as "dumping large amounts of inappropriate genealogical detail"? The section heading "Family and death" is clearly totally absurd, if not comical, what has "family" got to do with "death"? The two topics are unrelated, so I split them into two logical categories. "Family" can mean either birth/ancestry or marriage/descent. Thus "Marriage and issue" is a clearer heading. Please can we have some comments as to whether my two edits are evidence of what I have been accused of doing. Lobsterthermidor ( talk) 13:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Walter de Lacy, Lord of Weobley and Ludlow 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. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
March 14, 2012. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Anglo-Norman nobleman
Walter de Lacy died in 1085 by falling from a scaffold while inspecting the building of
Saint Guthlac's Priory? |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sarastro1 ( talk · contribs) 12:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Marvellous stuff. I could pass it now, very easily, but just a few very minor comments.
Sarastro1 ( talk) 12:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
All good, passing now. Somehow I did not notice the part in "Family" which clearly explains the sons. I think it's time for a holiday... Incidentally, I have no real preference on the "held of" or "held from", but we were usually told to use "from". Doesn't really matter either way, and I have a suspicion that "of" sounds better but may be a little more impenetrable to the ordinary reader. Sarastro1 ( talk) 13:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I have been informed (as a formal warning threatening an editing block, see my talk page) that "it is unacceptable to dump large amounts of inappropriate genealogical detail into articles, yet you continue to do so, as here a few days ago in Walter de Lacy (died 1085) where you have been reverted: [1] by Ealdgyth".
I'm totally bemused. I actually reduced genealogical information by demoting to a note the sentence "A niece was married to Ansfrid de Cormeilles", which I felt was irrelevent, especially as we were not told who "Ansfrid de Cormeilles" is, and there was no link. So prima facie it's not notable. All I did was to rearrange the existing genealogical information into the standard wikipedia format of bullet points for issue/children (is that disallowed?), adding the date of death for the eldest son and heir, and stating that he was the eldest son and heir (is that disallowed?). That's four words, and not "inappropriate", surely entirely relevant. As is standard in thousands of wikipedia biographies. How is that possibly interpreted as "dumping large amounts of inappropriate genealogical detail"? The section heading "Family and death" is clearly totally absurd, if not comical, what has "family" got to do with "death"? The two topics are unrelated, so I split them into two logical categories. "Family" can mean either birth/ancestry or marriage/descent. Thus "Marriage and issue" is a clearer heading. Please can we have some comments as to whether my two edits are evidence of what I have been accused of doing. Lobsterthermidor ( talk) 13:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)