Talk:Parliament of 1327

Latest comment: 5 years ago by Serial Number 54129 in topic Comments
Featured articleParliament of 1327 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 13, 2019.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 18, 2018Good article nomineeListed
October 7, 2018Featured article candidatePromoted
August 20, 2018Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Featured article


    Colors in quoteboxes edit

    Good to know that the colors meet standards, but IMO garish is the word I'd use to describe the colors, especially that pink for that seymour phillips quote. Just seem distracting colors that add nothing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

    @Galobtter: I understand; I think it's also useful for breaking up the walls-of-dry-as-old-bones text. Would the pale yellow throughout be a satisfactory compromise? (See the current version. As well as being consistent—I see what you mean about garish; the yellow is more discreet, no?) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
    Much better. Thanks! Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
    No, Thank you; I wouldn't have noticed it otherwise! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

    GA Review edit

    This review is transcluded from Talk:Parliament of 1327/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

    Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) 15:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

    I'll start this in a couple of days. auntieruth (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
    Made a couple of tweaks to the lead toclarify who "he" was. Removed duplicated information. Also, I suggest using Infobox Historical Event to summarize the data. It will help to make theplayers and opponents clearer. auntieruth (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
    GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
    1. It is reasonably well written.
      a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
      needs infobox.
    2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
      a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
    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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
      a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
    7. Overall:
      Pass/Fail:  

    Comments edit

    • Serial Number 54129...really? Info boxes are political? I don't think so. I'll pass it, but....14:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply