This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Military / Peerage and Baronetage / Politics and Government / Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance). Middle Ages Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. English Royalty Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Royalty. For more information, visit the project page.English RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject English RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject English RoyaltyEnglish royalty articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Edmund of Woodstock, 1st Earl of Kent has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 20, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
	Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 5, 2020, and August 5, 2021.

Edmund of Woodstock was 1st Earl of Kent of the fourth creation, not the first creation, as can be seen by clicking on the link to "Earl of Kent". --ScottyFLL 21:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get the part of his death being in retailation for Edward I's defeat of Simon de Montfort. The Battle of Evesham happened some 65 years before his execution? And the Mortimer's certainly were on the side of the crown, seeing as one of this Mortimer's ancestor sent Simon's head to his wife at Wigmore following the slaughter at Evesham.

The text says he was "only seven", but dates say not quite six. Is there a date descrepancy? DavidRF (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Edmund of Woodstock, 1st Earl of Kent/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ruby2010 (talk · contribs) 02:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will review soon! Ruby 2010/2013 02:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• "The antagonism was largely caused by Edward's preference for his new favourites, Hugh Despenser the Younger and his father by the same name" Can probably delete "by the same name" (the Earl of Winchester's link is enough, I think)

• Fixed

Family background and early years

• Edward I -> Edward I of England on first mention

• Fixed

• With all the Edwards, make sure you make it easy for casual readers (i.e. "In August 1306 Edward signed a charter..." Make Edward I to help distinguish from son)

• Added a couple of these, where it could be confusing.

• Link to Edmund, 2nd Earl of Cornwall and Thomas of Brotherton, 1st Earl of Norfolk

• Linked Thomas of Brotherton, 1st Earl of Norfolk. Edmund, 2nd Earl of Cornwall, is not mentioned in the article; this is the Edmund who's the subject of the article, and needs no link.

• Isn't Edmund, 2nd Earl of Cornwall the same Edmund as the one mentioned in "He probably intended to give the earldom of Norfolk to Thomas, while Edmund would receive the earldom of Cornwall, which had been left vacant after Edward I's cousin Edmund died without children in 1300"? Ruby 2010/2013 22:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My bad; I forgot I wrote that! Fixed. Lampman (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Civil war

• There's that "by the same name" again. I would just say "his father Hugh Despenser the Elder"

• Fixed

• Wikilink Welsh Marches

• Fixed

• "Even with Lancaster out of the picture" sounds un-encyclopedic. Maybe, "Even with Lancaster defeated..."

• Fixed

• Not sure "contrariants" is the best word to use here; thoughts?

• Changed to "rebels".

Scotland and France

• 14 October -> 14 October 1322

• Fixed

• 30 May -> 30 May 1323

• Fixed

Other

• As far as I can see, Davies isn't cited, nor is Keen

• Removed

• You could also be consistent with the page numbers (pp. 556–7 vs pp. 197–198 for instance)

• Think I've got all of these now.

• The lead statement "Though he was officially exonerated, Edmund did not enjoy a great reputation during his life and afterwards, due to his unreliable political dealings." does not reflect the article body. Is there enough historiography of Edmund to warrant a new section?

• I wasn't able to find much, but I added a short paragraph at the bottom.

Not a lot to nitpick here; it is a well-written, clear article that describes a fascinating period of history. Good use of varied sources, no dab or image problems. I'll place the article on hold for seven days. Please respond back on this page when you have finished editing. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 04:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Article looks good. Nice work! Ruby 2010/2013 07:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Thus Edward III sanctioned the killing of his uncle." - "The execution of a royal prince was a great provocation to the seventeen-year-old Edward III, who had not been informed about the decision". How can Edward III have sanctioned something which he had not been informed of? Baron Bosse (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seven years have passed and no-one has answered this entirely reasonable question. Did Edward III sanction the death, or was it his protector doing it on his behalf? Dean1954 (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've amended that part. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]