Talk:Thomas of Bayeux

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Thomas of Bayeux has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 30, 2008 Good article nominee Listed May 18, 2008 Peer review Reviewed Current Status: Good article

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Biography     (Rated GA-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated GA-Class) Middle Ages Portal Thomas of Bayeux is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles. GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. WikiProject Middle Ages To do: WikiProject Anglicanism     (Rated GA-Class) Anglicanism Portal Thomas of Bayeux is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. WikiProject Anglicanism To-do: WikiProject Christianity      (Rated GA-Class) Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Move

If he's "usually" called "Thomas of Bayeux," then shouldn't the article be called "Thomas of Bayeux" with the redirect at "Thomas I of York"? TheLimbicOne 14:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   In the first place, you may want to consider shortening the lead because, as two paragraphs, it is quite long for an article of its size. Second, some of the prose doesn’t make sense. For example, was Sampson always Thomas’ brother, or only from 1086-1112 as is suggested by the text? Additionally, under “Serving William II” you have a string of sentences which all begin with “Thomas”: these should be rewritten. There are also a couple of other spelling and grammatical errors sprinkled throughout.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am placing the article on hold in the expectation that the problems mentioned above can be cleaned up. jackturner3 (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, think I addressed everything but the spelling and grammatical errors. If you could point those out? I freely admit I suck at spelling, so I'm not likely to see them without having them pointed out. And grammatical errors... I've stared at this dang thing so much I am starting to see spots! Pointers would be much appreciated. Ealdgyth | Talk 15:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Spelling is not a problem, and the grammer seems correct now. For that reason, I happily promote this article to GA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackturner3 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 30 January 2008