Talk:Lord Guildford Dudley/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking it on! I made some small changes today, but it is ready now! Buchraeumer (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. It will give me something to do in the morning. Pyrotec (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Initial review

I had a couple of quick scan-reads. You got a lot of detail in there and it is well referenced; and I look on it as GA-material. On the "down side", I think some of your sentences are long and convoluted. I have a great temptation to cut some of them in half.

I'm not going to do any more on this review tonight, but tomorrow I will go through it in more detail. As is my preference, I will leave the WP:Lead until last; other than that I will work through it section by section highlighting (mostly) problems. Finally, I will produce an Overall review. I hope to have this finished mid week; and I expect to be granting GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• I will be happy trying to address any issues, and please don't hesitate to mend any sentences if you feel like it. Thanks for your pains! Buchraeumer (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• You've been editing: it reads much better now. Pyrotec (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Imprisonment -

• I think that this section, posibly only the first paragraph, needs a minor reworking:

• The comment "However, the Duke had to take the field against Mary Tudor a few days after Jane's Proclamation, and within a further week her rule was over" appears to be quite mild. However, on rereading it several times "take the field" appears to be code for "a battle took place". I think this needs to be made clearer. I also (possibly wrongly) took the "Duke" to be the Duke of Northumberland, as he was the last duke to be mentioned, but perhaps it was the Duke of Clarence.
• In light of the comment above, I'm confused about "Once the new regime was in power, the Bishop of Winchester, Stephen Gardiner, took great offence ...". I originally assumed the "new regime" was Jane & Guilford", but perhaps it is refering to Mary.
• The first paragraph, again, appears to have a "gap": we go from "field" to baptism, Jane's abandonment by parents, to Gentleman Gaoler's lodgings & Bell Tower. Mary obviously took charge and became Queen, but this process is not explained: Queen Mary appears in the second paragraph, but only two paragraphs before that we anticipated "the couple's coronation would take place within a fortnight".

Pyrotec (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• I have expanded this, trying to make the change of power clearer. Hope it is not too detailed; but then it touches not only on Jane but on Guilford also, by extension. Buchraeumer (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Much improved. Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quality of the article I'm awarding GA status. Pyrotec (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What a surprise! Thank you!! I have just added a half-sentence on Stephen Gardiner (the bishop, who took offence at the little Guilford), that he was then a prisoner in the Tower (he was there since 1548 for persistently opposing the episcopal changes under Edward VI). Buchraeumer (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I saw it; you broke a citation, but a bot fixed it. Pyrotec (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)