Talk:Leges Henrici Primi/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: BencherliteTalk 11:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

An interesting and informative read. Just a few points for you:
 * Comments and questions
 * I've carried out a light copy-edit; I won't be offended if you prefer your version of any of the phrases, however. Tempted as I was to remove all trace of Americanisms from the article, I hope I avoided making changes for the sake of making changes (e.g. leaving in "The work was likely composed at Winchester" hurts my Br-Eng ears, but that's the price I have to pay for editing an international encyclopaedia!)
 * Nothing looked off to me... looked fine in fact. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Should the manuscript sigla be in italics? (Disclosure: my wife works with medieval manuscripts and I end up proof-reading her publications, and I seem to remember that she puts the sigla in italics.)
 * I double checked with Downer's work on the Leges as well as a couple of other works on other manuscripts/works, and nothing was in italics. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine, it might just be a question of personal preference or a particular publisher's house style. BencherliteTalk 15:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Could the lead include a bit more about its importance e.g. the Wormald quotation and / or the fact that it was the first legal treatise in English legal history?
 * Expanded a hair. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you explicitly say (outside the infobox) that it's written in Latin, although given its title it may be obvious. But it meant that I was slightly puzzled when I read "certain legal terms used in the Leges, whether in their original English language or rendered into Latin", since I had to read it a couple of times to try to work out whether it was saying that the legal terms in the Leges were in English or in Latin.
 * DUH! Added and linked to medieval latin, as that's the form of the language. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume there's no useful image of the manuscript or an early edition. I had a quick Google hunt and found this image of the Wilkins edition, which could perhaps be cropped to show just the title page, although I can see that it's not the greatest of additions to the article, and lack of images isn't a reason to fail an article anyway, of course.
 * I think I'll steal that image for when I do (if ever) something on Wilkins' work, but for this, I think it's a bit peripheral. It was very odd that Downer didn't include a single image in his edition, but there you are. If the relationship between the manuscripts was more complex, I'd have put in a chart/figure on that, but ... they aren't. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree about the peripherality of the image, which is why I hadn't done anything with it myself. BencherliteTalk 15:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, I can't see any real problems with the article. Let me know your response to these points in due course and I'll probably be able to pass it v. quickly thereafter. BencherliteTalk 12:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the review! I'm still undecided on it and FAC, I don't think there's that much more to expand the article with, and I really detest manuscripts/literature studies, so doing it up like Hemming's Cartulary is probably more than I can bear... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine. I'm happy that this meets the good article criteria, so I'm happy to pass it. Well done! BencherliteTalk 15:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)