Talk:Henry III of England/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Brigade Piron (talk · contribs) 18:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I'll review this if you don't have any problems with it. A disclaimer: I know absolutely nothing whatsoever about the subject, but at least I'll come at it from the perspective of the average reader. I've scanned it through and there are no obvious problems. I'll read it through properly and bring up the table in due course.Brigade Piron (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hi! I've gone through and made the changes. I've added some more bits on the Jewish policies in, but I can't go much further without getting into considerable detail on the Jewish bond policy, or alternatively straying a bit from Henry's role in the process. I'm a bit stuck on the lead paragraphs though (my usual weak spot) - I can't work out what to lose without it then failing to summarise the sections adequately. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2013 (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.	Background and childhood The first two paragraphs of this section need clearer focus/reshuffling. At the moment, it goes from discussing Henry to discussing Britain, back to discussing Britain again in the next paragraph. The paragraph break seems quite arbitrary. Could you reshuffle it into paras with a common theme. "taught to ride, by probably Ralph of St Samson" -> ", probably by..."? Further on Types of penny - long cross and short cross are, I believe, technical terms so inverted commas or capitals.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Could the lead be cropped in any way? It's long and doesn't really allow the reader to dip into it. Not a major problem. This aspect is still an issue, and would be an obstacle if you want it to go for A-class, but not such a big issue here.Brigade Piron (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes, although it occurs to me that the section on the persecution of Jews could possibly do with being extended, given its importance. It is currently quite short.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Congratulations! I'm sorry it took so long to review & I wish you the best on your future contributions. Brigade Piron (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)