Talk:House of Burgh

Merge with Burke Family

I've proposed that these articles be merged, on the basis that both are functionally identical, with the same salient points & sources. I don't have an opinion on which should be kept, being unfamiliar with the genealogy article conventions. (reposted at Talk:Burke Family) --mordicai. 16:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Verbatim copying from source

This article has text that is verbatim from its cited source, Burke: People and Places, Eamonn Bourke. Example: "It was founded by the Anglo-Norman knight William de Burgh, brother of Hubert de Burgh (q.v.). Before the death of Henry II. (1189) he received a grant of lands". This would be a copyright infringement were it not for the fact that Bourke simply cribbed this from the 1910 Encyclopaedia Britannica, so it is technically in the public domain in the US. Nonetheless, it is bad form, and the article should be rewritten from scratch. Agricolae (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:House of Burgh/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Phlsph7 (talk · contribs) 09:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello KINGHB190 and thanks for putting all the work into getting this article into shape. However, despite all the improvements, the article fails criterion 2b since there are too many unreferenced paragraphs and passages, especially in the subsection "Descendants of William de Burgh (d. 1206)" and in the section "Arms (Heraldry)" (there is also a citation needed tag). According to criterion 2b, these passages require inline citations "no later than the end of the paragraph". I've added a few additional observations below. I suggest that you address them and add all the relevant sources before a renomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Other observations:

• WP:EARWIG shows no copyright violations.
• From a short look, I didn't spot any unreliable sources and many are high-quality sources, like Oxford University Press.
• In England, one branch of the family (Lords Burgh) changed the name to 'Burgh' at some time after the Civil War in the seventeenth century (the 'de' having been removed to hide the family's connection to the nobility and Catholicism). Either replace "at some time" with "sometime" or better remove the expression entirely
• The crest...is believed to be awarded for a de Burgh's courage and skill in battle during the Crusades. This sentence sounds strange to my ears, especially the "a" before "de Burgh's courage" and the possessive of "de Burgh's". What about replacing it with ...is believed to be awarded for the courage and skill of a de Burgh in battle during the Crusades.?
• According to legend, the arms originated during the crusades "crusades" should be uppercase
• The whole first paragraph consists of a single sentence. I would suggest splitting it up into several shorter sentences. There also could be a grammatical problem with the last part (...; many Kings of Britain and multiple other royals, and ...): this phrase seems to lack a verb (or maybe I'm parsing it wrongly).
• William de Burgh founded the Irish line of the family which included the Lords of Connaught, Earls of Ulster and Earls of Clanricarde. and After the fourteenth century, some branches of the Irish line gaelicised the surname in Irish as de Búrca which gradually became: Add commas before "which".
• The lead section contains a lot of information about the circumstances of how the name changed for different branches. It might be better to discuss these details in the body of the article and only leave a shorter summary in the lead.
• The article contains many duplicate wikilinks. For example, Anglo-Norman and Earl of Kent are linked both in the first and the second paragraphs. According to MOS:DUPLINK, "a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence in a section." You can use the script User:Evad37/duplinks-alt to detect them.
• Since you seem to be personally associated with the topic, you should be very careful about WP:COI.

Phlsph7 (talk) 09:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:House of Burgh/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: WilldeBurgh (talk · contribs) 08:36, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 12:27, 9 December 2025 (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:Arms of the House of de Burgh.svg: a source is missing at Commons.
• File:Burgh Castle aerial, 2015.jpg: an issue to be addressed at Commons.
• File:Arms of Elizabeth of York (Princess).svg: a source is missing at Commons.
• File:Robert the Bruce and Elizabeth de Burgh.jpg: add more details of the source at Commons (at least page)
• File:De burgh arms.png: a source is missing at Commons.
• File:Ulick de Burgh.png: US PD tag is missing at Commons.
• File:6th Earl of Mayo.jpg: a source and US PD tag are missing at Commons.
• File:De Burgh.jpg: a source and PD tags are missing at Commons. Borsoka (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Source review

• The article cites several biographical entries from ODNB although according to WP:SOURCE our articles are to be primarily verified by secondary sources.
• I have not found a single work specifically dedicated to the family. Which are the cited works based on which the family as a whole (the article's subject) is presented in the article? Borsoka (talk) 12:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

After a week of inactivity, I have no choice than failing the article. Borsoka (talk) 08:51, 16 December 2025 (UTC)