Talk:John de Vere, 7th Earl of Oxford

John de Vere, 7th Earl of Oxford has been listed as one of the History 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
August 16, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 18, 2008.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that John de Vere, 7th Earl of Oxford took part in both the Battle of Crécy and the Battle of Poitiers – the two main battles of the first phase of the Hundred Years' War?

Biography: Peerage and Baronetage / Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal 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
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance).

Middle Ages Mid‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Nomination[edit]

Well Written
Written in clear, plain English. The spelling and grammar are good.

Has a concise and authoritative lead section not cluttered with references which are used in the main body.
Factually Accurate and Verifiable
Seems to contain no opinion or POV, The ascertations made are carefully worded and sourced.

The sources seem comprehensive and authorative, it suffers slightly as the majority of sources are not available on-line to check but come from published sources. Due to the time-frame of the article (14th C) this is to be expected.
Broad in coverage
Very succintly deals witht he Earls life alone. Makes reference to key events and lineage of importance to the subject but does not elaborate beyond what is required.
Neutral
Stable
Well maintained with no edit wars or frequent reversions
Images
uses one appropriate image which is sourced and copyright available.

The well structured family tree elucidates the article well making the connections clear without being cluttered or over bearing.

I review this article as an excellent pass. Well done User:Lampman. Perhaps you may look at the list of WP:GAN for an article to review. --Brideshead_{(leave a message)} 15:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article is well-written, it did contain a glaring factual error which I have since corrected. Previously the article stated that de Vere's father-in-law was Giles de Badesmere when in actuality it was Bartholomew de Badlesmere, 1st Baron Badlesmere. Giles was Maud de Vere's brother, to whom she was co-heir.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magna Carta Ancestry[edit]

Hi Bearpatch,

I notice you've put 'self published source' and'better source needed' beside the citation in this article of the 2nd edition (2011) of Douglas Richardson's four volume Magna Carta Ancestry. Magna Carta Ancestry and its predecessor, the first edition, as well as the companion volumes Plantagenet Ancestry (first and second editions) have been used as references in countless articles on Wikipedia. I don't know whether you've had a look at these volumes, but they cite literally thousands of published reliable sources. The second editions of both volumes are self-published, but they merely update the first editions, which were not self-published. NinaGreen (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you posted essentially the same comment on Talk:Elizabeth Willoughby, 3rd Baroness Willoughby de Broke and the issues are the same, is it OK if we just converse there? Bearpatch (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a good idea. NinaGreen (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]