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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 17:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Starting first read-through. Looks very fine at first sight. Will report back in the next two days or so. Tim riley (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No serious problems with this article, which is clearly of GA standard, in my judgment. A few minor points before I observe the formalities:

• Womanhood
  • "Queen Jane" but "Anne Boleyn"
  • Eye-wateringly long blue-link in the first sentence.
  • "Her executioner was a wretched and blundering youth …" – is this relevant to an article on Mary I?
  • "and appealed to her cousin Charles V for protection" – unclear how Charles was able to protect her in England
• Accession
  • "advisors" – odd to see the American spelling preferred to the English "advisers" (see OED) in this very English article
• Reign
  • You'll need to reword or find a cite to enable you to remove the "by whom" tag that someone has justifiably added
  • "whereas his other subjects" – in normal modern usage "whereas" implies a contrast, but everyone in the sentence seems to have been opposed to the move
  • "Queen regnant" – capitalised "Queen" here but not in the lead. You ought to to be consistent.
• Religious policy
  • another very long blue link here; could you trim the blue?
• Foreign policy
  • "shired" – unfamiliar term – perhaps explain or link? Tim riley (talk) 09:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be away for a week or so from tomorrow, with very limited internet access. I hope to see the few points, above, addressed by then (of which only the tag is more than minor), enabling me to promote the article. Happy editing! Tim riley (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No progress on above points, I'm sorry to see. Is there any prospect of it? Tim riley (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only substantive point in my earlier comments (the "by whom" tag) has been attended to, and as there are no further queries of any crucial importance, I am passing the article as GA. I see it has been much vandalised lately but that is scarcely the same as edit warring. The prose is not, perhaps, of FA standard at all points, but it is certainly of GA quality.

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A most interesting article. It was a pleasure to review it.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: