The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot ( talk) 5 February 2022 [1].
A return to FAC after a year away. Where does it go, etc. But here's a thing that was brought to GA by the thorough review of T. Riley, of this parish, and should be ready for the next stage. Another—if slightly later—medieval parliament—the King wanted money, both lords and commons refused until he got rid of a few scroungers, he refused, and all hell burst out. Hey, parliament was nearly invited for dinner and poisoned by the King, how's that for a healthy political relationship? All comments, criticisms welcome; around table, we'll chew the cud. —— Serial 18:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Image review
Goodness, is it that time already? Where does the time go? Recusing to review.
More to follow. Gog the Mild ( talk) 17:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
More to follow. Gog the Mild ( talk) 19:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
That all looks good.
More to follow. Gog the Mild ( talk) 14:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
More to follow. Gog the Mild ( talk) 22:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
And that's all I have. Gog the Mild ( talk) 13:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
The sources used all appear to me to be reliable and are correctly formatted. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild ( talk) 14:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I hadn't spotted this FAC until a kind Wiki-colleague drew it to my attention today. I'll be back with comments a.s.a.p. once I've given the article a proper re-reading. Tim riley talk 14:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
First points from a quick canter through for typos etc: these four words need attention, I think:
More anon. Tim riley talk 19:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
A few minor points on the prose:
But this Parliament of October 1386, usually known as 'marvelous'—the epithet mirabilis in the text of a chronicler favourable to the party in fact applies to the assembly in the spring of 1388. He's slightly opaque. I think he means that contemporaries referred to the 1386 session as marvellous and that of 1388 as "mirabilis", but a misreading of a chronicle has led subsequent generations to ascribe the latter description to the former. Does this make sense? If you agree, I'll add something like this instead.
I hope these comments are useful. I have no problems with the content of the article, which seems well and widely sourced, balanced and clear. Not being familiar with the subject I cannot comment on how comprehensive the article is, but I have no reason to think it may not be. – Tim riley talk 18:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
OK. Willing to add my support for the elevation of this article to FA. It seems to me, as far as I can judge, to meet the criteria as to content, and the prose will now suffice, I think. Tim riley talk 23:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Mentioned I wasn't sure whether to review this or not, but noticed it falling down the list...Will come back with comments. Vaticidal prophet 15:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Resolved comments
|
---|
Later sections to kome. Vaticidal prophet 19:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
That should be all of it. I've fixed a couple of very minor typographical oversights that would've been more trouble to mention here than to just fix myself (e.g. in1386 missing a space). It's a good read, mostly nitpicking, although the dropped thread of de la Pole's fate needs noting. Vaticidal prophet 21:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
|
All good. Happy to support this excellent article for promotion. Vaticidal prophet 12:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Reading through this article I just have one query for the nominator. Is "modern historians have been more critical" supported by the cited source or is it possibly WP:OR? Could I have a quote? ( t · c) buidhe 00:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm going to have to oppose unless the issues with original research are fixed. See WP:RS/AC ( t · c) buidhe 06:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot ( talk) 5 February 2022 [1].
A return to FAC after a year away. Where does it go, etc. But here's a thing that was brought to GA by the thorough review of T. Riley, of this parish, and should be ready for the next stage. Another—if slightly later—medieval parliament—the King wanted money, both lords and commons refused until he got rid of a few scroungers, he refused, and all hell burst out. Hey, parliament was nearly invited for dinner and poisoned by the King, how's that for a healthy political relationship? All comments, criticisms welcome; around table, we'll chew the cud. —— Serial 18:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Image review
Goodness, is it that time already? Where does the time go? Recusing to review.
More to follow. Gog the Mild ( talk) 17:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
More to follow. Gog the Mild ( talk) 19:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
That all looks good.
More to follow. Gog the Mild ( talk) 14:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
More to follow. Gog the Mild ( talk) 22:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
And that's all I have. Gog the Mild ( talk) 13:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
The sources used all appear to me to be reliable and are correctly formatted. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild ( talk) 14:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I hadn't spotted this FAC until a kind Wiki-colleague drew it to my attention today. I'll be back with comments a.s.a.p. once I've given the article a proper re-reading. Tim riley talk 14:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
First points from a quick canter through for typos etc: these four words need attention, I think:
More anon. Tim riley talk 19:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
A few minor points on the prose:
But this Parliament of October 1386, usually known as 'marvelous'—the epithet mirabilis in the text of a chronicler favourable to the party in fact applies to the assembly in the spring of 1388. He's slightly opaque. I think he means that contemporaries referred to the 1386 session as marvellous and that of 1388 as "mirabilis", but a misreading of a chronicle has led subsequent generations to ascribe the latter description to the former. Does this make sense? If you agree, I'll add something like this instead.
I hope these comments are useful. I have no problems with the content of the article, which seems well and widely sourced, balanced and clear. Not being familiar with the subject I cannot comment on how comprehensive the article is, but I have no reason to think it may not be. – Tim riley talk 18:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
OK. Willing to add my support for the elevation of this article to FA. It seems to me, as far as I can judge, to meet the criteria as to content, and the prose will now suffice, I think. Tim riley talk 23:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Mentioned I wasn't sure whether to review this or not, but noticed it falling down the list...Will come back with comments. Vaticidal prophet 15:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Resolved comments
|
---|
Later sections to kome. Vaticidal prophet 19:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
That should be all of it. I've fixed a couple of very minor typographical oversights that would've been more trouble to mention here than to just fix myself (e.g. in1386 missing a space). It's a good read, mostly nitpicking, although the dropped thread of de la Pole's fate needs noting. Vaticidal prophet 21:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
|
All good. Happy to support this excellent article for promotion. Vaticidal prophet 12:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Reading through this article I just have one query for the nominator. Is "modern historians have been more critical" supported by the cited source or is it possibly WP:OR? Could I have a quote? ( t · c) buidhe 00:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm going to have to oppose unless the issues with original research are fixed. See WP:RS/AC ( t · c) buidhe 06:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)