# Talk:John de Vere, 7th Earl of Oxford

Well Written 
Written in clear, plain English. The spelling and grammar are good.
Has a concise and authoritative lead section not cluttered with references which are used in the main body.
Factually Accurate and Verifiable 
Seems to contain no opinion or POV, The ascertations made are carefully worded and sourced.
The sources seem comprehensive and authorative, it suffers slightly as the majority of sources are not available on-line to check but come from published sources.  Due to the time-frame of the article (14th C) this is to be expected.
Broad in coverage  
Very succintly deals witht he Earls life alone.   Makes reference to key events and lineage of importance to the subject but does not elaborate beyond what is required.
Neutral 
Stable 
Well maintained with no edit wars or frequent reversions
Images 
uses one appropriate image which is sourced and copyright available.
The well structured family tree elucidates the article well making the connections clear without being cluttered or over bearing.

I review this article as an excellent pass.  Well done User:Lampman.  Perhaps you may look at the list of WP:GAN for an article to review.  --Brideshead(leave a message) 15:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Although the article is well-written, it did contain a glaring factual error which I have since corrected. Previously the article stated that de Vere's father-in-law was Giles de Badesmere when in actuality it was Bartholomew de Badlesmere, 1st Baron Badlesmere. Giles was Maud de Vere's brother, to whom she was co-heir.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bearpatch,
I notice you've put 'self published source' and'better source needed' beside the citation in this article of the 2nd edition (2011) of Douglas Richardson's four volume Magna Carta Ancestry. Magna Carta Ancestry and its predecessor, the first edition, as well as the companion volumes Plantagenet Ancestry (first and second editions) have been used as references in countless articles on Wikipedia. I don't know whether you've had a look at these volumes, but they cite literally thousands of published reliable sources. The second editions of both volumes are self-published, but they merely update the first editions, which were not self-published. NinaGreen (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Since you posted essentially the same comment on Talk:Elizabeth Willoughby, 3rd Baroness Willoughby de Broke and the issues are the same, is it OK if we just converse there? Bearpatch (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's a good idea. NinaGreen (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)