Talk:English invasion of Scotland (1400)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 02:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Will come back shortly. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Section 1; para 1; "Although war with Scotland had started under Edward I", which "war" was started by Edward, when it was started, mention clearly.
• Section 1; para 1; Link "Anglo-Scottish relations" to "Anglo-Scottish Wars"
• Section 1; para 1; Who is "Given-Wilson ", a historian or an author, mention that i.e it goes "as author Given-Wilson has put it". Also instead of "put it", "mentioned" is a better wording.
• Section 1; para 1; A comma(,) is needed after "In May 1399". Also mention the area in which Wark Castle was present.
• Section 1; para 2; In the first "Henry" was mentioned for the first time, so it must be linked to his article, and on the first mention full name must be mentioned i.e. "Henry IV" or "Henry V" or whatever it is. Mention who he is "King", "Earl", "Emperor" etc.
• I can observe over the entire article that full-stop is placed inside apostrophes (' '), in this way ('XYAYAYAYYAYAY.'^[ref]). But this is wrong. It must be outside, because it is the end for the whole sentence not just in-apostrophe text. It is to be — 'XYAYAYAYYAYAY'.^[ref] This needs correction over the entire article.
• Section 1; para 2; Mention who "Brown" is? author, historian etc.
• Section 1; para 2; "but one of Scotland's greatest military commanders", who is that commander?
• Section 2; para 2; sentence 2; It must be "This was due to the gradual arrival of army supplies", not "The was due to the gradual arrival of army supplies".
• Section 2; para 3; "royal Household", "H" in "Household" must be de-capitalized, it is a common noun.
• Section 2; para 3; "ten of sea salt", what is this ten, tonnes or kilos, it should be mentioned even though tonnes of flour is mentioned.
• Section 2; para 4; "Brown has suggested the king 'envisaged ... a punitive expedition' with", what is the necessity of "..." in the sentence.
• Section 3; sentence 1; Mention who is "Sadler"
• The lead needs considerable expansion about the campaign and also the aftermath. It is too short.
• Infobox may be added for this article; {{Infobox military conflict}} may used. Many of the parameters of the infobox are available.
• The referencing style must be changed. The long references must be moved to a new references section, and citations must be short of the just mentioning the author's last name, year, pages, or {{Sfn}} also may be used in the place. This is makes the citations clearer. For examples, see, Battle of Wareo, Battle of Isurava, Gallipoli Campaign, Bougainville counterattack.

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Note to Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: your final statement, "The referencing style must be changed", is not part of the Good Article criteria; indeed, they do not specify a referencing style nor may you require one. I strongly recommend you read Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not, and also Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, because some of your requests are actually not backed up by the criteria. While it would probably be nicer to have long references in one section and shorter ones referring to them in another, the fact remains that each inline citation is unambiguously referenced to a source, which is all the criteria require (Any system that allows the reader to connect a specific sentence with a specific citation is an acceptable inline citation method ... However, one system should be used consistently for inline citations.). Also, infoboxes are not required for GA status (For example, reviewers must not fail an article over the presence or absence of an infobox). Finally, while the lead section could be expanded, it shouldn't be too detailed. Remember, per WP:LEAD (which is a GA criterion), an article of this size should have a lead section of one or two paragraphs only. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I've not failed the article yet, I know that from the MILHIS academy of reviewing articles. But when information is available it can be presented in the infobox. I just suggested. Per the lead, it should an adequate summary of the article, but in this case, information in section 3 is never discussed in the lead i.e. the aftermath. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Any update on this and the Neville–Neville feud review? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The nominator declared that he/she is no longer willing to address the comments and nomination is withdrawn. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)