Talk:Reginald of Canterbury

Reginald of Canterbury has been listed as one of the Language and literature 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: April 19, 2021. (Reviewed version).

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	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
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Middle Ages Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Poetry Low‑importance

	Poetry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry 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.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Reginald of Canterbury appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 May 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the medieval French monk Reginald of Canterbury wrote a long Latin epic poem on Malchus, a Syrian saint whose life was originally recorded by Saint Jerome?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/May.

Wikipedia

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Reginald of Canterbury/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Modussiccandi (talk · contribs) 10:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'll be happy to review this article. I think I'll start later today and hopefully have this assessed by the end of tomorrow. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: The article has been on hold for a week now. I don't mind leaving it on hold for longer but I wanted to check whether you're aware of my review. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tuesday will be the earliest I can get to this... it's been a wild week or three outside of Wiki. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. Take as much time as you need. I just wanted to see whether we're on the same page. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: I've made the suggested adjustments myself. (There wasn't much to fix anyway.) Please let me know if you approve. I will then let the article progress to GA status. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have not raised any concerns about my additions, I have decided to consider my minor concerns addressed. I will now give this article a pass for GA status. Do feel free to fiddle with the lead I've written. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);^[2]

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Review

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The prose is generally fine. I have adjusted some things, though it's a clear pass overall.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Here I would suggest two changes: 1) The lead is too short. While it's obviously a brief article, I think a two-paragraph lead section should be possible. You could also think about an infobox, but this is by no means mandatory. 2) Currently, the "Life" section talks about his life as well as his poetic works. Unless there is a good reason for this, I'd divide the article into two sections ("Life" and "Works"). The last paragraph, beginning Reginald was still alive in 1109..., might have to move up to the "Life" section.	On hold

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The article features an internally consistent system of referencing. A list of works cited is appended, whose individual entries leave nothing to be desired.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	All citations are to reliable sources. We have the Oxford DNB, a PhD Thesis (from a well-known American university, so no problems there), and books from Boydell & Brewer and Brepols.	Pass
(c) (original research)	The article does well to stick to the (admittedly scant) facts.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	I have run the article through Earwig's copyvio tool and found nothing of concern.	Pass

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	This topic has two major facets: the subject's life and his poetical works. Both are covered adequately, given the source situation. On the division of sections, see my comments on 1b.	Pass
(b) (focused)	As is to be expected with these historical biographies, the article contains no excessive or undue detail.	Pass

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The article is written in a neutral fashion. It shows no undue adulation of its subject.	Pass

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
I have seen no recent edit warring in the article history. The nominator has been the main contributor of content.	Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	n/a	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	No images are used in the article. Given the nature of the topic, this is understandable. (When one googles the subject, most images depict Reginald Pole.) I wouldn't insist that images be added: unless they show the subject or a manuscript of his poetry, their illustrative value would anyway be limited.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
On hold	@Ealdgyth: I'll now put the review on hold; feel free to ping me once you've addressed the issues I raised on 1b. Once that's done, the article will go through to GA status. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]