Talk:Richard Cobb/GA1

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

Reviewer: HaEr48 (talk · contribs) 14:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Starting review. HaEr48 (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

It's an interesting read about an interesting scholar. I feel it needs some work to bring it in line with policy, and to make it more understandable for people unfamiliar with the topic. More specific feedback below.
 * Several unsupported passages in lead:
 * “ His works offer exceptionally fine detail culled from a variety of lesser-known sources and analysed within a broad interdisciplinary scope”: the body does not say anything about “lesser-known sources” and “broad interdisciplinary scope”.
 * “he fashioned numerous highly regarded collections from his large trove of research on French history.”: Not sure how you concluded “highly regarded collections” - the body only mention an award for ‘’A Second Identity’’ and several personal awards such as CBE and Legion d’Honneur
 * “ the weaving of new collections from extant material has been carried on by other scholars long after his death”: the body did not mention other scholars picking up and publishing his works


 * Run afoul of WP:WTW in several places:
 * WP:PEACOCK terms such as “exceptionally fine detail”, “numerous highly regarded collections”, “poignantly intertwines”, “massive and intricate”, “meticulously researched” Please reword these and others to make the article sound less like a promotion material than an encyclopedic description.
 * WP:WEASEL words, e.g. “ widely regarded as a ‘masterly account’”, “derided by some scholars”, "He was known as", "has been described", all of these hide who said them
 * “survived by his four children” is discouraged per WP:SURVIVEDBY.
 * Reduce words like “numerous”, “various”, “massive” when not necessary

HaEr48 (talk) 06:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In general, try to make the article more accessible to general readers and non-experts. Use simpler words, present terms with contexts to make it understandable (e.g. Marxist historiography, sans-culottes). Many of these things may be obvious to you, but we should aim for the article to be accessible to those with little knowledge in the domain.
 * “Cobb returned to France and stayed for another nine years.”: did he have an employer during this time?
 * “Marxist school” or historiography is referenced so much in the article, a brief explanation of what it is would be useful
 * “Cobb always avoided the doctrinaire presumptions common to his French colleagues”: what “doctrinaire presumptions” does Cobb have that his colleague doesn’t? Without explaining that, this passage isn’t that informative.
 * "His approach is that of the novelist…”: name the author of this quote
 * “Cobb's approach has been described ...”: active voice/name the source of this description
 * “Because his sympathetic insight..”: source of this quote
 * “Cobb's works have been derided by some scholars as misanthropic..”: name the scholars? See WP:WEASEL
 * "For academic and literary achievement": maybe “For his academic and literary achievements”?
 * “his works offer a similar appeal to students of other disciplines “: can you clarify the “similar appeal”?
 * Failing the review because there is no response after about 3 weeks. HaEr48 (talk) 09:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)