Talk:English claims to the French throne/GA1: Difference between revisions

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

Nominator: DeCausa (talk · contribs) 15:38, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 09:29, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Image review

• File:Edward III of England (Order of the Garter).jpg: the source is a dead link at Commons (I would delete it, because the manuscript is mentioned in the description)
• File:Royal Arms of England (1340-1367).svg: source is missing at Commons.
• File:Royal Arms of England (1399-1603).svg: source is missing at Commons.
• File:Royal Arms of England (1694-1702).svg: source is missing at Commons.
• File:Royal Arms of United Kingdom (1801-1816).svg: source is missing at Commons.
• File:Royal Arms of Great Britain (1714-1801).svg: source is missing at Commons. Borsoka (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you saying you would like me to add sourcing on the Commons files? That should be feasible as they are well known/prominent CoAs? DeCausa (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. Each image needs references to reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, I’ll get on it. It may take me a few days. DeCausa (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• Are works by Heath and Mortimer peer-reviewed sources? Borsoka (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don’t know the exact publishing process of the publishers in question – I don’t think that’s ever very clear with monograph publishers unlike journals. They are, however, published by well known, reputable and prominent publishing houses – Random House and Bloomsbury Academic in the case of Mortimer and Pen & Sword (military specialists) in the case of Heath – so I would assume the process is robust. The works I used by Mortimer have multiple citations on Google Scholar. Perfect King: Life of Edward III has 98 citations[1], Fears of Henry IV has 82 ciatations[2], Medieval Intrigue has 26 citations[3] and 1415 Henry V’s Year of Glory has 57 citations.[4]. Do you think they’re not WP:RS? DeCausa (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The website of Pen and Sword does not indicate that peer review is standard for their publications. I have not found an academic review of the book written by Heath. I tried to locate the reference to Mortimer’s book in one of the listed works (Henry IV by Chris Given-Wilson) but was unable to. Therefore, I am seeking comments on the reliability at the relevant Noticeboard before proceeding with the review. Borsoka (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Borsoka: Thanks. While I’m pretty sure Mortimer has a strong reputation and is RS I do have doubts about Heath. Sumption (in his 2025 vol. 5 already used in the article) makes the same point as I was using Heath for so I’ve replaced Heath with a citation to that. DeCausa (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]