Talk:Parliament of 1327
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Serial Number 54129 in topic Comments
![]() | Parliament of 1327 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 13, 2019. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Colors in quoteboxes
editGood to know that the colors meet standards, but IMO garish is the word I'd use to describe the colors, especially that pink for that seymour phillips quote. Just seem distracting colors that add nothing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Galobtter: I understand; I think it's also useful for breaking up the walls-of-dry-as-old-bones text. Would the pale yellow throughout be a satisfactory compromise? (See the current version. As well as being consistent—I see what you mean about garish; the yellow is more discreet, no?) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- Much better. Thanks! Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- No, Thank you; I wouldn't have noticed it otherwise! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- Much better. Thanks! Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Parliament of 1327/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) 15:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'll start this in a couple of days. auntieruth (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Made a couple of tweaks to the lead toclarify who "he" was. Removed duplicated information. Also, I suggest using Infobox Historical Event to summarize the data. It will help to make theplayers and opponents clearer. auntieruth (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Comments
edit- Yo Auntieruth55 many thanks for your tweaks, much appreciate as always. TBH—Infoboxes are a little bit political at the moment aren't they (Read=The most political thing on WP!!!) and I try and avoid radicalism where possible :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 17:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Serial Number 54129...really? Info boxes are political? I don't think so. I'll pass it, but....14:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- I mean, discretionary sanctions and all that? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)