# Talk:John of Tynemouth (canon lawyer)

The article doesn't link to Tynemouth. In John's case, doesn't "of Tynemouth" signify "of the Abbey of Tynemouth"?--Wetman (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No. As far as I've been able to determine, he wasn't a monk. For that matter, the other two "John of Tynemouth"s listed here ... the chronicler was probably a monk of St Albans and the geometer it isn't clear if he was a monk or secular clergy or even possibly a layman (although that's unlikley). Ealdgyth - Talk 13:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:John of Tynemouth (canon lawyer)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Canadian Paul 21:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I will be reviewing this article in the near future, hopefully later today. Canadian Paul 21:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
...and here it is:

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Under "Legal career", second paragraph: "In 1203 John was employed in pleading at Rome on Walter's behalf in a case against Gerald of Wales." Since you just mentioned two "Walters" in the previous paragraph, it is not immediately clear to which you are referring in this sentence.
Same section, fourth paragraph: "In 1203 the medieval chronicler Thomas of Marlborough, who was a monk of Evesham Abbey, pled a case for Evesham before Archbishop Walter" has the same problem.
Same paragraph: "He also described the three men as magistri mei in scholis." A footnote with an explanation, or even a translation, might be helpful here to explain the significance of this to the uninformed reader (such as myself).
Other than that, I didn't find any issue with the article. It's a bit short and lacks any images but, considering the nature of the subject, that's hardly surprising and certainly not an impediment to a GA pass. In fact, after these clarification issues, we should be good to go! I saw your notice about being away, so if you need more than the standard seven days to address these issues, just give me a heads up on my talk page. Canadian Paul 01:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't be an issue, should be able to get to these this evening after dinner... we're heading out tomorrow but would be in a place with confirmed internet by Wed night (grins). I'm leaving the wild west behind and heading towards civilization. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Should have handled all of these ... let me know if you think there is something else...Ealdgyth - Talk 02:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Everything looks good now, so I'll be passing the article! Congratulations and thank you for your hard work... on to the next one now for me! Canadian Paul 17:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)