Talk:Josce de Dinan/GA1

GA Review

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

For starters, this article meets the essential and basic requirements necessary to exist as factual information on Wikipedia; its references are legitimate and expansive, its relatively neutral, and absent of a need for cleanups or recent edit wars. This said, it simply does not live up to the expectations of a Good Article. While there may be limited information on the subject of the article, it is regardless lacking in any sort of extensive biographical information (e.g. Early Life, Death, ect.). After reading the article multiple times, I felt relatively unsure of meaning of the content without delving into links to various other pages. Some background on the events de Dinan took part in would help, as would more content on his actual life and accomplishments, as opposed to an entire section detailing a single set of circumstances, which also represents this article's leading problem: it is filled with "probably"'s and "presumably"'s. An article so full of unsureness simply does not live up to the requirements of a Good Article as detailed on A good article is:

1. Well-written:
   1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
   2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
   1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
   2. reliable 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);
   3. it contains no original research; and
   4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
   1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
   2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, 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
   2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

. This review welcomes a second opinion.

ItalA19 (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Reviewer: ItalA19 (talk · contribs) 21:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I do feel this article meets the GA criteria quite respectably given the relative paucity of sources for a biographical subject who lived 850 years ago. I'm not troubled by a single occurrence each of "probably" and "presumably". At this distance, many statements can only be assigned some measure of probability, and saying so explicitly is preferable to false certainty. The "presumably" instance makes clear why this is being presumed. If it's possible to clarify why it seems "probable" that Josce "received many of the de Lacy family's holdings in southern Shropshire", that would be ideal. Anyhow, the conversation has restarted at Talk:Josce de Dinan/GA2. Rupert Clayton (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)