Talk:Nicholas Exton/GA1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 11:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Initial comments

  • Spelling: I seem to recall a similar problem with a previous GA nomination – John de Mowbray – and here again we have excellent content sabotaged by lorry-loads of spelling mistakes. I spotted these:

    • dutring
    • wasa
    • manouvre
    • evetually
    • Meanwhiile
    • Mayorality
    • monoplies
    • advocay
    • heavilly
    • temporarilly
    • exton
    • asa
    • reqested
    • wll
    • scandel
    • suggestst
    • parliment
    • whle
    • puchase
    • disd
    • KIng
I don't think I've missed any, but that's a total of 22.
 Done Incredible. Thanks for catching them.
  • Lead
    • A single, long-ish paragraph is rather heavy going. It would improve matters if you put in a line break before "Meanwhile, Exton…"
    • "elected Mayor of that city" – but "mayor" without a capital letter later in the text.
    • The word "however" appears twice in quick succession in the lead. It is unnecessary and distracting in both instances.
    • "He seems to had" – a word missing
All  Done
  • The Mayorality [sic] of Nicholas Brembre
    • Heading: we avoid definite articles in headings whenever practical (Manual of Style).
    • "own- armed- supporters" – the punctuation baffled me at first, but I think perhaps you mean "own—armed—supporters" (unspaced em dashes) or "own – armed – supporters" (spaced en dashes): either is OK according to the Manual of Style.
    • when you have amended "as wll as", you will have "as well as" twice in the same sentence. You might make the second one "in addition to" or some such.
All  Done
  • Twice mayor of London
    • Opens with another "however" that adds nothing and could usefully be removed.
    • common council" – I can't work out your rationale for capitalising or not capitalising the names of bodies: on the whole you capitalise them but "parliament" and "common council" are in lower case. I don't complain about it, but I just mention it.
    • "St Albans Chronicler" – the capital C makes him look like a newspaper.
    • Blockquote needs a citation to a source.
    • "…occurred "within days" of Exton's…" – if this is a quotation it should be attributed.
    • …at the 'Merciless Parliament' of 1388…" double quotes, not single, please.
    • "Despite having been a leading member…after that date". This is not a sentence, having neither a subject nor a main verb.
    • "When questioned … aware rather than ignorant of them." – The singular noun in the first part of the sentence clashes with the plural pronoun in the quotation.
mostly  Done- except the double quotes around Mercilless Parlt- it's a moniker rather than a quote/ -But in any case, it's not really required to be in anything other than plain text (cf. the article title itself), so I gave removed them. Also, that subkect- /objectless sentence, it read v poorly, so i split in two and re-cast it; see what you think? As for the inconsistent capitalisation of gouvernmental, etc., bodies
  • Death and overview
    • The quotations in the first sentence need a citation at the end of it.
    • "(Sumpt 636)" – style of citation inconsistent with that used throughout the rest of the article.
 Done- the (Sumpt636) was a maintenance tag for me to insert a sfn- which I then failed to do. Attributed those quotes: there are now three citations to the same source in a single sentence :)
  • References
    • I can't find a consistent pattern for your method of citation. For example, refs 10, 11, 15, 16, 24, 30, 31, 34 and 36 have hyperlinks that don't lead anywhere. For multiple references to the same book you refer to "Sherborne (1994)" after the first, full citation but repeat the title and bibliographic details of The Poet's Tale: Chaucer and the Year that made the Canterbury Tales at each mention.

If you address these points we can move forward. I'll put the review on hold for a week. Tim riley talk 11:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Many thanks for all your pointers, up to and including the embarrassing typos. Now to references. The sfn format makes these hyperlinks automatically, and I have absolutely no idea why! Ah, the reason the Strohm book for example is repeated in full each time is because its generated from the googlerefbookgeneratortool, and that doesn't seem to have short formations? but I can do them manulaly no problem. not sure about the sodding dead-end hyperlinks though... — fortunavelut luna 13:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update, I have abbreaviateed the GBooks refs too. Thank you! — fortunavelut luna 14:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replies

That was quick! You don't let the grass grow under your feet. The above replies are mostly satisfactory, but:

  • The revised words about Exton vis-à-vis Brembre are still not quite right syntactically. May I suggest something like: "Although Exton had been a leading member in what has been called Brembre's "Ricardian faction" in London, and "stayed with Brembre as long as he could (until March 1387), he deserted him decisively soon after that date."? (I take it that "Bambre" in the following sentence is a typo.)
  • I think the references will pass muster now for GA despite the kaput links, but if you want to take the page to FAC you'll have to get it sorted out completely. I don't use sfn myself (I am 4,000 years old and use an early hieroglyphic style of citation) and so can't offer advice, but I'll ask an sfn wiz to look in and comment.
I think the main issue is just that the sources aren't listed. I've fixed the Bird example - I also used a | instead of a comma between author and date as it's much easier, I'm sure the other style is possible but I think it will require a named ref rather than just saying "ref=harv". Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I offer a tip for easily eliminating typos in future? From the article page (the normal one, not the editing page), copy and paste the entire text into Word and then simply run the Word spell-check. I highlight the words it queries and then go through them in the WP editing page changing as necessary.

We're almost there. Onwards and upwards. Tim riley talk 16:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Again, thank you. With permission, I have appropriated your sentence above and bunged it in; it reads better, no doubt about that. Re. those deadlink refs- I think it's something to do with using Harvard-style referencing (which I don't)- but no idea what exactly!
Bloody good idea, using word! And really so obvious- thanks for taht. Always open to tips that make life easier! — fortunavelut luna 16:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Squeaks through on citation methods, but citations are clear enough
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well referenced.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Well illustrated.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well illustrated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I enjoyed this article, and so, I'm certain, will many other readers. Tim riley talk 20:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Nicholas_Exton/GA1"