![]() | William de Warenne (justice) 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. Review: October 17, 2017. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from William de Warenne (justice) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 10 May 2013 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Not BRR - you made a bold edit, I reverted some of them. One sentence sections are frowned on. Encyclopedic prose and headings avoid the use of symbols. The infobox is quite fine. Persondata is depreciated. There is no need to break out offspring by bullet points - we are a prose encyclopedia, not a genealogical listing. There is no need for citations in the lead. Your rearrangement removed a citation from information, leaving it sourced. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Llywrch ( talk · contribs) 21:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Although I'm not deeply versed in this period of English history, I'm willing to review this article & see if I can learn something from an expert. -- llywrch ( talk) 21:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in writing this up. I've had off-Wiki distractions, plus the complication I've had the 2nd century Roman Empire on my mind & not 12th century England. But to my comments.
Most of these points are minor & I expect you can easily fix them. The one about his father's debts, however, is important enough to require additional material in some form. -- llywrch ( talk) 06:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Summary Only two of my objections has not been met: one is the issue about his father's debt, which really doesn't come into this article so it can be overlooked; the other is how to make use of Turner's quotation in the lead. If I hadn't been so lackadaisical about this review I'd insist on cleaning that bit up, but IMHO Ealdgyth has been waiting long enough on this review & I trust she'll fix it soon, & definitely before the article is submitted for FA. I'm passing this. -- llywrch ( talk) 19:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | William de Warenne (justice) 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. Review: October 17, 2017. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from William de Warenne (justice) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 10 May 2013 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Not BRR - you made a bold edit, I reverted some of them. One sentence sections are frowned on. Encyclopedic prose and headings avoid the use of symbols. The infobox is quite fine. Persondata is depreciated. There is no need to break out offspring by bullet points - we are a prose encyclopedia, not a genealogical listing. There is no need for citations in the lead. Your rearrangement removed a citation from information, leaving it sourced. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Llywrch ( talk · contribs) 21:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Although I'm not deeply versed in this period of English history, I'm willing to review this article & see if I can learn something from an expert. -- llywrch ( talk) 21:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in writing this up. I've had off-Wiki distractions, plus the complication I've had the 2nd century Roman Empire on my mind & not 12th century England. But to my comments.
Most of these points are minor & I expect you can easily fix them. The one about his father's debts, however, is important enough to require additional material in some form. -- llywrch ( talk) 06:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Summary Only two of my objections has not been met: one is the issue about his father's debt, which really doesn't come into this article so it can be overlooked; the other is how to make use of Turner's quotation in the lead. If I hadn't been so lackadaisical about this review I'd insist on cleaning that bit up, but IMHO Ealdgyth has been waiting long enough on this review & I trust she'll fix it soon, & definitely before the article is submitted for FA. I'm passing this. -- llywrch ( talk) 19:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)