Talk:Thomas de Buittle

Thomas de Buittle has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 7, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Medieval Scotland Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medieval Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Medieval Scotland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Medieval ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject Medieval ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject Medieval ScotlandMedieval Scotland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

University of Oxford Low‑importance

	University of Oxford portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA review

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
The prose could stand some further work before the article is promoted much beyond GA. For example, the use of semicolons should be curtailed, and more caution should be utilized with commas.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I am placing the article on hold in the expectation that the problems mentioned above can be cleaned up. jackturner3 (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've attempted to address thy concerns. Inform me if this isn't enough. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Based on these changes, I hereby promote this article -- jackturner3 (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Add topic