Talk:William Ketel

DYK nom

Template:Did you know nominations/William Ketel - Ealdgyth - Talk 16:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Rolls Series - Which Volume?

Just a quick note: I was looking at the Rolls Series Volume 71 issue 2, as linked in the article, but was unable to find Vita S. Iohannis Eboracensis archiepiscopi in the contents. I did however find it in the first issue (link, pages 239-260, and 261 onwards), and would appear Miracula Sancti Johannis, Eboracensis Episcopi is in fact William Ketel's work. Not sure if this error is due to whoever has written the main bulk of this article, or whether it's a mistake by Richard Sharp in A Handlist of the Latin Writers of Great Britain and Ireland Before 1540. Afraid I don't have access to Sharp's book to confirm one way or the other. Evidently this is original research on my part, so if someone could confirm whether this is a mistake in the article, or by Sharp, we will need another source which correctly identifies which part of the Rolls Series has published William Ketel's work. Stephen Walch (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, perhaps you're best placed to comment on the above? Stephen Walch (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I've corrected that - rather than give the specifics and link to the google books in the main article, I've changed it to volume 1 (which is correct and which Sharp has himself) and put it in the external links. The volume 2 is all on my head .. I blame google books which is insanely ... badly organized but I should have double checked it closer. Sharpe had it as volume 1.. heh. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

No trouble. I was originally looking to see if I could assist with finding an image of the Rolls series containing his work (see comments on the Good Article review above). I'm thinking we could just use the image of page 261 from the google books link? Stephen Walch (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

We could... I was waiting on the rest of the review to deal with it, to be honest... but no reason you can't put it in if you want. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I've added it, and will use this as an opportunity to remind @Tayi Arajakate about the review. :) Stephen Walch (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:William Ketel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 01:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• Hello Ealdgyth, I'll be taking up the review for this nomination and will present it to you shortly. I hope you find my feedback helpful. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  Is this review still going on? Just asking since it dosen't seem like this page has been updated. If you would like I can help. — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 03:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• Just a suggestion, but it's if possible to source, an image of his works (in the Rolls Series) could be an improvement for the article.

Assessment

1. Comprehension:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(b) (MoS)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined

2. Verifiability:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	No copyright violation or plagiarism found.	Pass

3. Comprehensiveness:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined

4. Neutrality:

Notes	Result
The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined

5. Stability:

Notes	Result
The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined

6. Illustration: Illustrations are not necessary for this short article.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	N/A	Neutral
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	N/A	Neutral

 

---

• Inactive reviewer, second opinion requested on [Talk page]. Review is taken over.

 

Starts GA Review. The review will follow the same sections of the Article. Thank you --Whiteguru (talk) 07:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

 

---

Observations

Document statistics

• HTML document size: 51 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 5318 B
• References (including all HTML code): 1083 B
• Wiki text: 5735 B
• Prose size (text only): 3531 B (593 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 174 B

Page Information

• Page views in the past 30 days = 1,062
• 90 day page views = 168, daily average = 2 views
• Date of page creation = 11:09, 5 January 2016
• Date of latest edit = 15:51, 28 May 2022
• Total number of edits = 47 by 12 editors
• Most of the edits on this page occurred in 2016 ...
• Bots on page noted; no Clue BotNT noted, no vandalism noted. Page considered stable.

Images

• File:William Kitel - Miracula Sancti Johannis.png = Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication
• Image is tagged and CCbySA remit given; appropriate use with suitable caption

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Short Article and GA Status

• A short article is regarded as less than 25kb. This article is 51kb (see above)
• Good Article Talk Archives advise, A good article may be of any length, as long as it properly addresses all major aspects of the topic.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

• Well scribed. Clear, crisp text.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

• References identified as reliable sources.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

• Well referenced and keeps the focus on the work of Ketel.

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

• NPOV is preserved in this article.

Good Article Criteria

1. The article should be clearly written, in good prose, with correct spelling and grammar.
2. The article should be factually accurate according to reliable sources
3. The article should broadly cover the topic without unnecessary digressions.
4. The article should be stable, with no ongoing edit wars.
5. The article should comply with image use policy.
6. The article is free of obvious copyright violations.

• There being no failures of the Six Good Article Criteria, the article qualifies as GA. --Whiteguru (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)