 | Ranulf Flambard has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
editIs this article really to be considered Start Class? It's not exactly a stub. I think it's well referenced and written. Hopefully someone will have a look and reclassify it. I have no vested interest here either. Literally just found it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.99.154 (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Survey
editWP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.
- Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?
- If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?
- Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?
At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Nominator on the road
editI'm on the road and may or may not be able to access the internet reliably. Figured I should let folks know in case the article gets reviewed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
GA assessment
editI've gone through the article and fixed a few minor things, but it certainly meets the GA criteria, so I'm not gonna bother with a more detailed review. I'll leave a few suggestions for improvement though, mostly matters of personal taste and preference
- "The story [about Ranulf's niece and the legate] is unlikely to be true." - says who, and why?
- "...he would have been about 5-foot-9-inch (1.8 m) tall." It should perhaps be pointed out that this would have been a relatively imposing size at the time, but such a statement would of course have to be sourced.
- Personally I prefer to put commas after the author name in refs (Barlow, William Rufus p. 141), but this is a minor thing of course.
Good job, I especially enjoyed the intelligent use of the best of up-to-date scholarship, which is something I find is often missing. Lampman Talk to me! 19:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)