Talk:Gaston III, Count of Foix

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 16:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gaston III, Count of Foix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Snugglebuns (talk · contribs) 21:09, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 12:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Image review

• File:Fébus 89v.jpg: the description of the source is not specific enough at Commons (for instance, the manuscript or its modern edition could be specified)

  Linked to the English article and the French National Library scan of the book. Let me know if that is enough or if you meant something else. Snuggle📫 21:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

• File:Signature Fébus.png: source is missing at Commons.

  I haven't been able to find an online source for the book this is from, I linked to the worldcat listing. Snuggle📫 21:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

  You could add the details of the book (author, title, year of publication, publisher, ISBN and page). Borsoka (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  Added the isbn and book info, I will add the page once I get access to the book again. Snuggle📫 22:23, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

• File:Territoires Fébus Début de Règne.png: at least one reference to a reliable source is missing at Commons.

  I'm not sure what map the uploader used to make this, I added a link to one of Tucoo-Chala's maps that may have been used. I can make a new map if required. Snuggle📫 21:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

  A new map is not needed. You could add the details of the book (author, title, year of publication, publisher, ISBN and page). Borsoka (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• File:Cernoch.jpg: the source is a dead link at Commons.

  Added an archive link Snuggle📫 21:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

  Are Livre de l'ordre de la jarretière de Bruges (mentioned in the caption) and William Bruge's Garter Book (mentioned in the source) the same?

  Ah, yes it is. I missed translating that title. Changed the caption to also link to the article about the book. Snuggle📫 22:23, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

• File:Territoires Fébus Mort.png: at least one reference to a reliable source is missing at Commons.

  Looking for a source for this one. Snuggle📫 21:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

• File:Froissart British Library 29v.jpg: the source link is not specific at Commons.
• File:Froissart British Library 126.jpg: the source link is not specific at Commons.

  Checked the wayback machine and it looks like the image is not visible but I added a link to the catalog listing for the physical images for this one and the 29v image.

  126.jpg is not listed in the source. Borsoka (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  Fixed now, I found an archive of the image listing it in the Harley collection. 126 is mentioned in the catalog listing in the paragraph about the decoration on the miniatures (126r) but I added a link to an archive of the actual image that shows that it is in the Harley MS 4379 collection. Snuggle📫 22:23, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

• File:Canso de Fébus.jpg: the source link is not helpful at Commons. Borsoka (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

  I removed this one because I couldn't find the source and I wasn't sold on the image in the first place. I can look for something to replace it if you think the article needs it, I personally feel that it has plenty of pictures already. Snuggle📫 21:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Source review

• The referencing method is somewhat difficult to follow. Would it be possible to separate the bibliographic details of each cited work from the references? This is our usual practice. Borsoka (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

  Done, let me know if this is satisfactory. Snuggle📫 21:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

• Tucoo-Chala (1976): ISBN is missing. Borsoka (talk) 02:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Comments

• I realise that the article has recently been trimmed, but at over 9,000 words it remains very long. I am confident that his life could be summarised in fewer than 8,000 words in an encyclopedic article. Borsoka (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

  Working on this. It has been a while since I went back through this article so I will likely be able to find more to trim this go around. Thank you. Snuggle📫 21:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Borsoka: I was able to trim out about 900 words, I am going to go through it again and see if there is any more that can be taken out but that is a start. Snuggle📫 00:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Borsoka: as much as I hate to do this, I am not going to have time to put the work in on this article right now. I should've removed the nom but honestly forgot about it. If you wouldn't mind failing the review and once life calms down (or if someone else comes along and wants to take it over) it can be re-nominated. Snuggle📫 22:26, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I am sorry to hear you have not had the time to work on the article, though I quite understand. I hope you will be able to return to it and re-nominate it in due course when things have settled down. Wishing you all the very best in the meantime. Borsoka (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)