Talk:Edmund Fitzalan, 2nd Earl of Arundel

Edmund Fitzalan, 2nd Earl of Arundel 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 10, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

Biography: Peerage and Baronetage

	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).

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.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

"Created?"[edit]

"In 1306 he was created Earl of Arundel, " But his father was the first earl? Is "came of age" somehow intended?--Wetman (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I changed it to "styled". Lampman (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Edmund FitzAlan, 9th Earl of Arundel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 16:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
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:

Specific concerns

Images:
- On the infobox caption, can we specify where the image is from, i.e. which manuscript, etc? Also ... which one is Edmund?
  - I've added the name of the chronicle, plus some info on the image page. The men aren't identified in the manuscript; had they only carried livery it would have been much simpler. I'm pretty sure Despenser is the grey-haired dude, since he was in his sixties at the time, but I can't really write that since it would be WP:OR.
General:
- Should have Template:Persondata
  - Done
Lead:
- I'm assuming that he was never canonized? Should make that explicit in the lead.
  - Done
Family and early life:
- Should state at what age he was when he became of "full age" many readers aren't going to understand that phrase.
  - I've changed that sentence.
Opposition:
- Who was the conflict in the reign between? Better set that out right in that first sentence of the first paragraph.
  - Done
- Suggest either explaining why Gaveston was "presumptious" or eliminating the slightly POV term.
  - I removed the word
- suggest rewording "grievous" to "insulting to the nobility" or something similar.
  - Changed
Return to loyalty:
- Need a citation for the last sentence.
  - The sentence is elaborated on in an endnote, which has a citation.
Final years:
- - Done
- Same deal with canonization, I'm assuming he wasn't? It needs to be made explicit either way.
  - Done
- explain briefly what attainted means.
  - Done

Overall, very nice, Just a few spots of unclearness or other issues that need a bit more explanation. I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your thorough review. I've tried to address your issues , but if there are still problems remaining, please let me know! Lampman (talk) 07:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2nd/9th Earl[edit]

The title of the article doesn't match the bolded name in the first sentence. The reasons for the variation (2nd, 9th etc.) are outlined elsewhere, but surely there should be consistency between the title and the into? Retroplum (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using Harvard refs[edit]

Most of the references use naked text. Since the targets are already wrapped in citation templates, I propose changing these to {{sfn}} (or probably {{harvnb}} to simplify changes to the cases of named refs). As suggested in the template's talk page, I'll give a few days for discussion. David Brooks (talk) 14:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Without dissent, done. David Brooks (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]