Talk:Coat of arms/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 20:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm Calvin999 and I am reviewing this nomination. — Calvin999 20:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Four dead links
Why is the second paragraph of the lead only one line long? Looks a bit odd
but this usage is wrong in a strict sense of heraldic terminology. → This doesn't sound encyclopaedic
from the 11th Century, → does century need to be capitalised?
By the 13th Century arms → Comma after century
become a kind of → Too conversational (use of 'kind of')
remained rather consistent → Too formal (use of 'rather')
In the 21st century, → You don't capitalised century here, but there are several instance prior where you do
I think the lead is far too detailed and long given the length of the article and the relatively short sections in comparison
In the heraldic traditions of England and Scotland an individual, → Why do you link Scotland but not England?
and Scotland an individual, → Comma after Scotland
usually a color → I would have thought that you would use British English spelling for this article, not American? Given that this article doesn't really have anything to do with America.
an heir presumptive. → Link heir presumptive
Traditions and usage has very short sentence "paragraphs", it looks odd to have them so short and separate. A paragraph should be four to five sentences
were so encased → Use of 'so' reads conversational
European tradition: some sections are short and small that they don't warrant needing a sub-section. French and British could be combined I think.
Also, there are more one line stray sentences. Make all prose paragraphs consisting of four to five sentences.
Again, the sub-sections of Asia and Africa are so small. The Islam one isn't in need of being by itself.
Yet, even these simple designs often express an origin.[unbalanced opinion] → This tag needs sorting
A one line sub-section for Canada can't be justified, it looks ridiculous. The New World practices section could easily be one paragraph for both nations.
Same for Catholic Church
A lot of the Notes are missing dates and access dates

Outcome

Structurally, I think this article is a mess. One line paragraphs should be minimised but there are multiple instances, even one line sections. I don't think this article passes 1b of the criteria and it seriously needs working on. I found this article really disjointed and no flow because of how the sections have been organisae and written. The lead needs to be shrunk too. It should be a summary. I think two paragraphs would be more than enough. I'm sorry but I can't pass this article. It needs to be majorly revised. — Calvin999 20:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]