User:Marinelise/Adelaide of Aquitaine/Cohenek Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Marinelise / Marin Bultena


 * Link to draft you're reviewing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Marinelise/Adelaide_of_Aquitaine?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists) Adelaide of Aquitaine

Evaluate the drafted changes
In accordance with the guidelines in place with Wikipedia, Marin Bultena has updated her subject’s lead in a minor but not insignificant way. Since the general structure of the lead has not been completely altered there will be no word regarding the concision and clarity of its introductory sentence. In returning to Bultena’s addendum it is a simple and effective addition that addresses the context in which her subject is often referred in. In explicitly mentioning how she is often referred to in relation to her husband, she shows the importance of marriage ties within the early Medieval period and explains indirectly why the subject has scarce primary sources attributed to them.

Moving on to her content, Bultena adds a substantial amount of content to her subject. One example being her specification of dates which enhances her subjects' place within time. Solely placing time within years creates a perception that the subjects actions are undefined, vague and worst that they are irrelevant, so I am noticeably glad of these additions. Date specifications are but a minor fraction of the additions made, as Bultena also included information that adds further detail into the decentralization of the Frankish monarchy, i.e. “Hugh was elected the new king by an assembly of Frankish magnates at Senlis with Adelaide as queen.” Along with dealing with the topic of the Frankish monarchy, her additions also clearly define her subject’s role within the Frankish court using credible sources supported by historical scholarship. However, in making this adjustment Bultena also removed a line mentioning her subject’s diplomatic authority abroad, perhaps this is because the previous example does not strongly attest to her individual influence. I would recommend reevaluating the importance of that deleted line, however it does not detract from the subject if it remains removed. Bultena’s significant contribution is the correction of historical events through the proper placement of names involved within the Gerbert conflict. Quite erroneously, the original Wikipedia article attributed the Archbishopric of Reims to Gerbert of Aurillac. Through the usage of reliable scholarship she made a correction stating that Gerbert served the function of a tutor and that it was Arnulf who held the position of Archbishop. I should not have to espouse how important historical accuracy is to the understanding of the general public to declare how necessary this change is. Lastly in relation to content, Bultena included further context as to why Gerbert resisted a certain command, which provided proper closure to the conflict. In considering the totality of Bultena’s additions, I see no explicit departures from the original text and also no signs of bias as she is mainly building on the incomplete work of previous editors.

Besides content, Bultena also included a Wikipedia appropriate depiction of her subject. One change that I was slightly concerned about was the change of “Issue” to “Children” as both are satisfactory titles for describing genealogical descent, however, “Children” seems more personal. It is probably likely that this change was to make her relationship with her children to be more intimate and to that I have no great complaint. Overall Bultena's additions and usage of sources aligns with the neutral tone of Wikipedia, other than the concerns I flagged I see no further issues with this intervention.