Wikipedia:Peer review/Berkhamsted/archive2

Berkhamsted
This peer review discussion has been closed. I am hoping to raise the artlcle grade from C to at least B.
 * Previous peer review

I previously listed this article for peer review in November but on that occassion the article did not recieve feedback, which is unstandable for various good reasons (e.g. editing was still very active). Since then the has been several excellent contributions by more experienced editors than me and 10% of the article has been moved to its own page. The article is prehaps longer than usual for a town of compariable size, however Berkhamsted is a small town with a deep and notable history.

All forms of suggestions, comments and contributions are most welcome.

Thanks, -- BOD -- 13:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC

Comments

 * These comments are general as I am not familiar with the difference between C and B grades.
 * Some of the references are inadequate. E.g. 98 and 99 appear the same. Refs should at least have the publisher, journal where applicable, date if available. Thus 98 could be instead of
 * partly fixed in that instance, realising tho upgrade all citations to the highest standard is a huge job, so hiding. -- BOD -- 19:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Ref 2 is a newspaper property supplement. This is not encyclopedic. There are plenty of better sources such as
 * fixed -- BOD -- 19:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Berkhamsted is a civil parish with a designated Town Council within the administrative district (borough since 1984) of Dacorum," This is clumsy. Why "designated"? Maybe "Berkhamsted is a civil parish with a Town Council, and it is part of the borough of Dacorum,"
 * fixed --  BOD -- 00:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "In the medieval period (1066 to 1495)" The medieval period started long before 1066. "After the Norman Conquest"?
 * fixed --  BOD -- 00:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "which was generously endowed by J. Paul Getty, Jr." "generously" should not be used (except in a quotation) as it is WP:POV.
 * fixed -- BOD -- 00:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Berkhamsted and Bulbourne valleys. It is not clear how these are related.
 * fixed -- BOD -- 00:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Prior to the Roman invasion these mines would have belonged to the Catuvellauni people" This is an odd way of putting it. Why not in the previous paragraph that Berkhamsted was in Catuvellauni territory.
 * fixed -- BOD -- 00:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Puzzlingly, the prologue of the Law of Wihtred states that Wihtred and the "great men" of Kent issued their legal code before a large assembly of Kentish people, "in the fifth winter of his reign, in the ninth indiction, sixth day of Rugern" (6 September 695) at "that place which is called Berghamstead"." There is some confusion here. The citations are to Oliver and Yorke. I do not have Oliver, but according to the FA article on Wihtred of Kent the laws are thought to have been issued at Bearsted. I do have Yorke, and she is not talking about Wihtred's law but a charter he issued the following year, S17, which she cites as suggesting that Wihtred's power extended into the territory of the East Saxons. However, according to the notes to S17 the leading charter authority Susan Kelly regards it as spurious. I would leave the whole thing out.
 * fixed -- BOD -- 00:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The last part of this paragraph is not referenced.
 * fixed -- BOD -- 19:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Evidence of late 9th century human interference with the River Bulbourne" What does this mean?
 * reworded -- BOD -- 21:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Anglo-Saxon Chronicle' Manuscript D:-" The quote is not referenced and it is WP:OR. I would delete it/
 * fixed -- BOD -- 00:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "It was at Berkhamsted, in early December 1066, that William the Bastard, the Duke of Normandy became William the Conqueror.[40]" This is dubious. William became king when he was crowned in W estminster Abbey. The source is dated 1847, which is far too dated and the reference wrongly dates it 2011.
 * fixed -- BOD-- 00:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There is  no reference for note 6
 * fixed


 * Berkhamsted Castle. There should not be 2 different sub-sections on this. The Schama comment is unreferenced and not relevant to the castle.
 * Schama removed. Reason for two sections, the first historical, the latter archeological. -- BOD -- 21:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Berkhamsted Castle became permanently associated with the Earls and Dukes of Cornwall" Permanently? Is it still? I would delete.
 * Yes it still is, see http://duchyofcornwall.org/ancient-monuments.html -- BOD -- 00:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Berkhamsted was granted several more royal charters" Several more? I don't think you have referred to a previous one.
 * Henry II 1156 Charter is mentioned at the start of the section, it may have not been clear as the bit you quote above had the wikilink. -- BOD -- 19:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "jettied urban building" What does this mean?
 * wikilink added -- BOD -- 22:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "the castle ruins and the park were leased from Elizabeth I by Sir Edward Carey" Should not this be leased by Elizabeth to Carey?
 * fixed -- BOD -- 00:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting article but maybe too long and I have not read the whole of it. It needs copy editing and fuller references. There is some POV language - another example is "The Rex is a popular independent local cinema". popular is puffery. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * fixed that instance. -- BOD -- 19:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note. I should add that it is a matter of opinion whether it is too long. Reculver is even longer, and it only failed FA because of an argument over whether the main editor was doing original research. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your much appreciated commentary and advice. All recommendations will be acted upon, but until Wednesday i am on a extremely limiting iPad on a very poor connection, so will try apply most ofthe edits then. Further comments and advice By any editor will of course be appreciated. --  BOD -- 17:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)