Talk:Thomas Ragon, Abbot of Vale Royal

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thomas Ragon, Abbot of Vale Royal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ultimograph5 (talk · contribs) 20:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Starting review. Ultimograph5 (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is nice and concise.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I see no issues with the style of this article.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Very good references and organized in accordance with the guide to layout.
	2b. 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).	Good sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research found.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	WP:INTEXT is used when necessary, no plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It addresses main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Edit has brought this article up to standard.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is neutral.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No issues.
	7. Overall assessment.	This article has been brought up to Good Article standards.

• Well, I'm honoured you decided to make your bones on one of mine. It was certainly far sooner than I expected (cf., for example, October last year...), which is why I hadn't "polishied" it like I normally would a couple of weeks later—only having been written eight days previously! Anyway, @Ultimograph5: thanks for taking it on—a relatively simple one to start with, v. sensible—and have a look at the various changes, expansion, etc., that this edit brough to the article. Take care! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Unclear sequential rank of Abbots of Vale Royal

Peter, Abbot of Vale Royal

1322–1339/40

Article says 5th abbot?

Robert de Cheyneston, Abbot of Vale Royal

1340–1349

6th or the 7th Abbot of Vale Royal?

Thomas Ragon, Abbot of Vale Royal

1351–1369

Article says 8th abbot?

I didn't notice anyone mentioned in the articles as having held an interim '49–'51 post.

--99.32.150.12 (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)