Talk:Humphrey Stafford (died 1442)/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am giving this article a GA Review. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 17:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   I realize that we are at a great length of time from this man's life but are there more important details/life events that could be added? I am concerned at the shortness of this article.

   I'll give it a try, certainly. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 11:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   I need to do some checking on this.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   I ran the copyvio tool and none were found.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   The content is almost too focused (if that is possible).

   I can provide more context to his life, etc- That might help assuage the issue of article length too? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 11:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

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

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

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

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Are there more images available of Stafford's various holdings?

   Good idea- ironically, it was the shortness of the article that dissuaded me from overloading it with images. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 11:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I did a general read-through. Passing the article to GA-status is on hold just pending these last few items:

   I found a mistake in one of the Wikilinks. "arras" links to the city of the same name in France, but I think the intent is to link it to Tapestry as in Arras (disambiguation).

   I think the wording and linking of Berkeley inheritance was later claimed should be adjusted - there are so many words in red that it is a bit disconcerting. Also, which Thomas, Lord Berkeley is being referred to in that particular paragraph? (Is there perhaps already a Wikipedia article about this individual, but maybe under a different name?) Shearonink (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment: This review is only on hold pending the last three items above: 1)arras/WIkilink, 2)the redlinked inheritance phrase, and 3)which Lord Berkeley exactly? Shearonink (talk)

• @Shearonink: Right-think I've resolved those points- also found another image- and can still add some context. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 12:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I'm sorry, I just now did one last read-through and have found a few errors (mostly minor punctuation/grammar issues...with the exception of a pesky mystery man...):

• brother, John on the King's Council. (missing a comma, should be)-> brother, John, on the King's council
• ...and by 1403, he had been retained... has a comma too many. I think the sense would be better if ...and by 1403 had been retained
• in 1406, and Ralph continued serving... I'm sorry but just who is this "Ralph"? Is Ralph one of Stafford's - probably many - names? I know present members of the British royal family seem to have a long string of names as their Official Name.
• and the whole Berkeley inheritance claimed. is missing a verb, should be "and the whole Berkeley inheritance was claimed" (by the way, big thumbs-up for your recrafting of this section.) Shearonink (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I should have caught them sooner - really, you're almost done @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:! Shearonink (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done No problem, Shearonink, let me know if you find anything else -But see my edit-summary for the full confession! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.