Talk:Peter Talbot (bishop)

Peter Talbot (bishop) 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.
Review: June 24, 2024. (Reviewed version).

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

Ireland Mid‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland 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.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Peter Talbot (bishop)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: SkywalkerEccleston (talk · contribs) 08:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: PearlyGigs (talk · contribs) 11:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review[edit]

Hi, SkywalkerEccleston. I'll do this review as one of my "two-for-one". Although I'm a member of WP:GOCE, this is actually my second GA review. I'll do some reading and then come back to you, hopefully soon. Best wishes. PearlyGigs (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the article two or three times and made a few tweaks, as you can see in the page history. It's looking good but, to get my head around the WP:GA process, I just want to see how other reviews are done and how the criteria checks are recorded. I'll then need to consider the citations, though I don't anticipate any problems. The article is certainly well written and within scope. The coverage is wide enough given that there is only limited information about the subject. I'll try and finish this tomorrow. PearlyGigs (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

Well written. The prose is fine and there are no spelling, grammar, or syntax issues. I cannot see anything that jars against the MOS, although I have done a small amount of copyediting which I thought would help. Some people might think the lead is short but, given the size of the article and the absence of information in sources, I think it is concise and says all that needs to be said.
WP:V and WP:NOR. The reflist is good and the citations are presented in standard publishing format. No problems in this area and certainly no evidence of original research or copyright issues.
Breadth of coverage. Focus is within scope and coverage is adequate given limited information in sources.
Neutral. No problems.
Stability. No problems.
Images. Only the portrait but it is sufficient and there no problems I can see.

I think this is a good piece of work and so I will promote to WP:GA (need to check the process again, first!). An interesting read. Very well done. PearlyGigs (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you PearlyGigs!

SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 1:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)