Talk:Lady of the Forest

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 12:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ruby, I'll be glad to take this one. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks as always for your contributions! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Overall this looks like your usual terrific work, and is more or less ready to pass. I've made a few tweaks as I went; feel free to revert any with which you disagree. I have a few suggestions below, but I don't think there's much work to be done here.

• "having flashbacks to Sir Hugh's violent murder" -- can you clarify who Sir Hugh is? ("his friend Sir Hugh's" perhaps?)
• "a rabid man" -- this threw me for a moment--does he literally have rabies? Or do you just mean in the sense of frenzied/angry?
• The discussion in the "Analysis" section is slightly confusing. The footnotes show that Knight's comments are taken from a variety of sources, which is fine, but the in-text description (" In a chapter of Icons of the Middle Ages: Rulers, Writers, Rebels, and Saints"... " Knight continues that "...) implies a continuous line of reasoning from a single source. Can this be cleaned up a bit?
• I cut the "prominent" from "prominent scholar" as a minor bit of peacocking per WP:PEA
• The two uses of "noted" in the section should probably be reworded per WP:WTW -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• "entirely her own concoction." -- is this correct that Roberson refers to herself in the third person here? -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

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.	Minor clarity points above
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Minor WP:WTW points above
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.	Google and Highbeam checks suggest that it covers available information
	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.	Pass as GA

Thank you for the review! I believe I have addressed all of your concerns (I opted for "enraged" as a replacement for "rabid," and hopefully the analysis section looks better). Ruby 2010/2013 00:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that'll do it--thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for reviewing this and others! Keep up the good work! Ruby 2010/2013 01:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)