Talk:John, King of England/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shimgray | talk | 10:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
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've been summoned away this afternoon, so I'll have to put off a full check of the content until later - I'll try to get it done tonight, though. Shimgray | talk | 14:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and that took longer than planned! A couple of minor notes:

According to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, John was recognised as heir presumptive by 1197 and named as heir sometime early in 1199 - there's no mention of this in the text.

I really like the fact that you've included a footnote explaining that giving modern currency values would be silly! If only more editors were confident enough to do this :-)

Some more on his involvement with Wales,- Scotland & Ireland would be nice - it's not an essential requirement, but it's something that seems to be lacking in detail compared to other sections of the article. (Perhaps an avenue for future expansion?)

Overall, I think you give an appropriate amount of weight to Magna Carta in the article; we don't treat it as the single big event of his reign, which is good. However, I think a good chunk of people will be looking for it when skimming - would it be worth adjusting the headings so that it's explicitly mentioned in some way?

"Much of John's later reputation was established by two chroniclers writing after the king's death, Roger of Wendover and Matthew Paris." - I think it might be worth being explicit here that Wendover and Paris were both very negative about him; it's a bit ambiguous as it stands.

Otherwise, historiography all looks fair and balanced. The ODNB article tends to suggest that "he was a bad king after all" is gaining ground, but I think the current text gets this across with a bit more nuance.

Overall I don't think any of these changes are significant enough to hold up passing it; it's an excellent article and a pleasure to read. Shimgray | talk | 01:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! I've just made a couple of those changes, and will fish out the reference books in a bit and tackle the others. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just covered off the 1197/9 bit - I think its less clear cut; Turner thinks that Richard was in the process of clarifying the succession before his death, and I've added this into the text. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]