Talk:Simon de Montfort's Parliament/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Amakuru (talk · contribs) 20:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Starting review now. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

General points

Background section

• Poitevin - what is this? Wikilink?

• A region in France from where the King's notorious half brothers hailed. Linked this to House of Lusignan. Whizz40 (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Sicilian policy. What is this?

• Plans to invade Sicily. Linked this to Henry III of England#The Sicilian business for more detail. Whizz40 (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hugh Bigod. Who is he? Wikilink?

• The King's chief minister. Linked this to Hugh Bigod (Justiciar). Whizz40 (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• "in the middle of the King's parliament" - what is this? Who was involved in this parliament? The term parliament is introduced in the second paragraph

• Parliaments including Lords and higher clergy had met since at least 1236 (see for example List of Parliaments of England link in the See also section). The subject of this article was the first to invite representatives of towns and cities of England. Whizz40 (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Montfort or de Montfort?

• As discussed on the Talk page, suggest Simon de Montfort and either Montfort or de Montfort on each article. Found and made one change on this article from de Montfort to Montfort. Whizz40 (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• "Initially Montfort's legal arguments held sway" - what were his legal arguments?

• Refers to the Provisions of Oxford and Westminster regarding limiting the power of the king, explained and linked two paragraphs before. Whizz40 (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• The two armies met. Who were in these armies? How were they assembled?

• Henry's army and the Baronial army, led by Montfort (could reword to say "their armies met" but not sure the Baronial army is commonly referred to as Montfort's army. The sentence includes a link to Battle of Lewes which explains the detail. Whizz40 (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The parliament

• "Although Simon de Montfort claimed to be ruling in the King's name through a council of officials, he had effective political control over the government, although he was not himself the monarch, the first time this had happened in English history" - awkward wording. Two levels of "although".

• Reworded. Whizz40 (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• "Eleanor made plans for an invasion of England" - could do with more context on this. Why was Eleanor in France? She's not really introduced or even wikilinked in the article at present. Also, no more is mentioned of her after this sentence.

• Raising support for Henry from the King Louis of France, her brother in law. Linked to Eleanor of Provence. Whizz40 (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• "The event was overseen by King Henry, and held in the Palace of Westminster, London, which was the largest city in England whose continuing loyalty was essential to Montfort's cause".

  This doesn't seem to scan right. Should it be "The event was overseen by King Henry, and held in the Palace of Westminster, London, which was the largest city in England, and whose continuing loyalty was essential to Montfort's cause"?

• Made this change. Whizz40 (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• "Prince Edward escaped his captors". This is the first time Edward is mentioned in the body of the article, and he is not even wikilinked here. Was he the King's son? And why was he in captivity?

• He was Henry's son so Prince Edward who became Edward I hence necessary for Montfort's to capture/control. Mentioned this in the lead where it is linked. Whizz40 (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Legacy

• "The 19th century historian William Stubbs, however, popularised the 1295 "Model Parliament" of Edward I as the first genuine parliament, although modern scholarship questions this analysis"

  As above, the "however" and the "although" seem to offer two levels of negation; might scan better if split into two sentences.

• Reworded this. Whizz40 (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Ideas for improvement towards FA status

• I think the parliament section could be longer. More detail on its nature, more precision on who was involved, what actions it took during its short lifetime etc.

Thanks for the work on this, and it was a very interesting read. Let me know what you think of the points above, and I'll come back shortly to assess the references and other criteria for GA. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   • Yes, it is clear and concise. Some aspects could still be tidied up and the prose tightened to be classed as brilliant, but good enough for GA.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   • Lead: From WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences."

     For FA status I would expand the lead (along with the rest of the article probably). But good enough here, there's something from all the sections, and the notability and significance established early on.

   • Layout: Background, Parliament, and Legacy seem like good structure for such an article.
   • words to watch: I didn't spot any.
   • fiction: Doesn't apply.
   • lists: There aren't any.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   • Yes, uses a mixture of short refs with bibliography and some full references. No missing links.

   B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:

   • Yes. All important points in the body of the article are cited, and those in the lead match up with those in the body. I spot checked a ref from Jobson and it matched.

   C. No original research:

   • Not that I can see.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   • Yes. As already noted, a lot more could be said about the parliament, but it's fine for GA.

   B. Focused:

   • At 1713 words this is a short article. I think it could be longer for FA, as noted above, but it certainly doesn't go off topic.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   • Yes. I don't detect any bias in the article.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   • Major editors appear to have worked in collaboration, and no edit wars spotted. There was a move request recently, but this has caused no animosity.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

   • All images are out of copyright due to age.

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

   • Yes they are. There are images in each paragraph, relevant to the prose there.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass. Good luck with improving this article!  — Amakuru (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)