Talk:House of Lancaster/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mark Miller (talk · contribs) 22:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria

An article can be failed without further review if, prior to the review, it has cleanup banners that are obviously still valid. These include {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{citation needed}}, {{clarifyme}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). If the article is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria then it can be failed without being placed on hold. If copyright infringements are found in a nominated article then it can be failed without further review. In all other cases a full review against the six criteria is to be conducted and the nominator given a chance to address any issues.

1. Stable. No edit wars. Y
2. No cleanup banners or tags. Y

Review

A good article is— House of Lancaster

Y Well-written:

1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
1. YSpelling seems to use consistent British English variant and grammar seems appropriate.
2. YI see an issue with clarity in a couple of things. In the lead and the first section the origin of the dynasty or House of Lancaster is written in simplified terms that I think need further clarity (and sourcing). Specifically:" From the grant of lands and privileges by Henry III of England to his second son Edmund Crouchback in the 13th Century the Earls and Dukes of Lancaster were the wealthiest landowners in England next to the King." and "The House came into existence with grants of possessions from Henry III of England to his second son Edmund Crouchback." I think there should be more specifics about what was granted and how even in the lede to understand the history a little better and perhaps add some focus on the origin.

Amended - what do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I liked it very much. I made a small change from "warlord" to monarch and "leapt at" to "quick to".--Mark Miller (talk) 12:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

2. Yit complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Y Verifiable with no original research:

1. Yit contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
Reference section consistant and formatted appropriately.
2. Yreliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

• YThe section:"Conflict between Edward II and Lancaster" is a rather large chunk of un-cited material. If reference number three is the source for the entire section, I would ask if all that information is on one page and if so, that there be more citations for direct claims and perhaps one or two more references here would be nice, but not a deal breaker. I myself do not have this source available, but that doesn't mean I can't add a couple more different references to cite the existing claims, but it does need to be done for GA criteria.

Citations added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• YThe opening to the section:"Henry V and the Hundred Years' War – the Lancastrian war" is vague. It starts of with an opinion which requires a direct citation:"Henry V of England was a successful and ruthless martial leader". I am not questioning it, but it should have the citation even if repeating another reference. However, I also think there should be an expanded opening for clarity, explaining the specific part or phase the "Lancastrian war" played in the overall Hundred years' war.

Citation added + some context Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

it contains no original research.

• Y There is a concern of OR only in that there is a large chunk of un-cited text. If that is cleared up as mentioned above that would clear up any concerns of OR.

Hopefully all now clared up......what do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I think your changes with the copy edit I made for neutral wording, is good.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

YBroad in its coverage:

1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

• YThere are a few places where the main aspects seem to be missing. See Above under "Well Written".

it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

• YThere are a few places where focus could be improved and are important enough to need addressing for GA. Se "Well Written".
• YIn the first section: "Origin of the Earls of Lancaster" I have removed sectioning that I felt was to much detail by emphasizing Edward II and the Ordinances of 1311 in header title that sectioned off content, and by the main article link before the text. The links are still present in the prose.

YNeutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

YStable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• YStable with no edit wars.

YIllustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

• YThere are some common issues with the copyright tags on a few images that need fixing with the proper PD Art license that eliminates the red error message. I will list the images here but this should be a simple enough matter for me to adjust.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

1. YFile:HenryVIofEngland.JPG
2. YFile:BodleianDouce231Fol1rEdCrouchbackAndStGeorge.jpg

• Y Image replaced The image File:Agincour.JPG is missing author, source and date information and was replaced with an image with clear sourcing and authorship.
• Y Image replaced The file File:Kings2004 1002(011).jpg has copyright issues with attribution at upload being unclear and was replaced with an image with clear authorship and licensing.
• YThe image File:Thomas of Lancaster posessions.png is missing author, date and a description._{This actually has every it needs just not boiler plated}.

media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Y Image removed File File:Hundred years war.gif. missing all Too much information is missing or incorrect. I attempted to rescue the image by getting all the right fixes for basic use of an animated map to show context by translating a key. But it lacks source information which makes it original research and there is a mistake in the dating for the Battle of Formigny. It took place on April 15, 1450 and the animation shows it on the map dated 1451-53. This must be addressed or deleted (from the article). Missing is source, author, date and a description. This could place it in danger of deletion on commons but, due to the missing info lacks enough encyclopedic context/value with inaccurate dating and un-sourced territorial movements illustrated as facts. I don't believe this passes criteria to be used in a GA article.

This article has been listed as a Good Article.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Been a little distracted over the holidays folks. I am returning to this shortly.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the corrections on the two images that didn't have the proper PD-Art license(s) and added the proper description author date, etc. that were already there. I also did a small amount of photoshopping and cropping on the BodleianDouce231Fol1rEdCrouchbackAndStGeorge image.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

As it stands, the Hundred years war, animated map is original research with no source and inaccurate because of a slight error in dating. These are fixable. I alerted the author of the issue. They have made several updates but I don't know how often they log into commons. I May be able to salvage sources but the mapping of the grey area has to come from a properly free PD map. What I can't do right at the moment is edit the gif animation. But that shouldn't be too hard to find some basic program to open edit and save the files in some manner (I hope)..or anyone reading this wants to handle an animation request. I would like to rescue it if possible. It seems well used and linked to.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

There were a few things that just needed the bold editing to achieve. The sectioning in origins was removed as losing focus from the Lancaster subjects by emphasizing Edward II and having a main article link to Ordinances of 1311. Both links are still present in the prose.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Notes

(Notes are included to verify use of GA criteria as specified)

Cheers Mark Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)