Talk:John, King of England/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shimgray | talk | 10:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I've been summoned away this afternoon, so I'll have to put off a full check of the content until later - I'll try to get it done tonight, though. Shimgray | talk | 14:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

...and that took longer than planned! A couple of minor notes:

• According to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, John was recognised as heir presumptive by 1197 and named as heir sometime early in 1199 - there's no mention of this in the text.

• I really like the fact that you've included a footnote explaining that giving modern currency values would be silly! If only more editors were confident enough to do this :-)

• Some more on his involvement with Wales,- Scotland & Ireland would be nice - it's not an essential requirement, but it's something that seems to be lacking in detail compared to other sections of the article. (Perhaps an avenue for future expansion?)

• Overall, I think you give an appropriate amount of weight to Magna Carta in the article; we don't treat it as the single big event of his reign, which is good. However, I think a good chunk of people will be looking for it when skimming - would it be worth adjusting the headings so that it's explicitly mentioned in some way?

• "Much of John's later reputation was established by two chroniclers writing after the king's death, Roger of Wendover and Matthew Paris." - I think it might be worth being explicit here that Wendover and Paris were both very negative about him; it's a bit ambiguous as it stands.

• Otherwise, historiography all looks fair and balanced. The ODNB article tends to suggest that "he was a bad king after all" is gaining ground, but I think the current text gets this across with a bit more nuance.

Overall I don't think any of these changes are significant enough to hold up passing it; it's an excellent article and a pleasure to read. Shimgray | talk | 01:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks! I've just made a couple of those changes, and will fish out the reference books in a bit and tackle the others. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Just covered off the 1197/9 bit - I think its less clear cut; Turner thinks that Richard was in the process of clarifying the succession before his death, and I've added this into the text. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)