Wikipedia:Peer review/Edward VIII of the United Kingdom/archive1

Edward VIII of the United Kingdom
Previously rated as good article. Now requesting peer feedback. Please note that the article is LONG. DrKiernan 12:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 20:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Editors of the page are attempting to find a free-use image - see Talk:Edward VIII of the United Kingdom. All the other comments have been addressed. DrKiernan 08:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have uploaded a new image to wikicommons and replaced the top-right image in the article. DrKiernan 16:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

LuciferMorgan

 * Comment The 'Legacy' section is very listy and needs to be converted into prose which ties all the info together smoothly and cohesively throughout. LuciferMorgan 21:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the section. DrKiernan 10:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"He is said to have told an American diplomat.."


 * Said? By whom? LuciferMorgan 21:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"The couple appeared on Edward R. Murrow's television interview show Person to Person, in which the Duchess repeatedly and loudly cut into the Duke's comments to correct his observations, and generally appeared to be the domineering personality her detractors had represented her to be."


 * This can be deemed one's own opinion, unless, this is the opinion of a critic or biographer. When people appear on TV, everyone has their own opinion - so it would be best to cite it, and say who feels that way. Be very wary of the word "generally" throughout the article. Here's an example;

1. He is generally said to have been a nice individual. (Wrong way) 2. Mr. X, Mr. Y. and Mrs. Z said he was a nice invididual. (Correct way)


 * Writing the info in this way avoids any accusations of POV as such. I hope this is being of help. LuciferMorgan 21:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it certainly is helpful. I've masked the two comments temporarily; I'll delete them if the sources aren't forthcoming. DrKiernan 10:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok that all sounds fine. I'll see what else I can comment in this peer review and your other requested peer reviews. It's a shame that some take ages for comments, or don't garner any. LuciferMorgan 11:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've checked out the sources and amended the text accordingly. Thanks again for your comments. DrKiernan 10:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Powerful figures in the British government deemed this marriage unacceptable, largely because Edward had become the Supreme Governor of the Church of England which prohibited remarriage after divorce."


 * Which powerful figures? Can you find any specific names? Also, can you cite this sentence please? Thanks. LuciferMorgan 22:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've rewritten this section, not only to introduce sources, but also to make the sequence of events clearer. DrKiernan 09:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Other sources support the Duchess's contention that he favoured German fascism as a bulwark against communism, and even that he initially favoured an alliance with Germany."


 * What other sources? Name them. LuciferMorgan 22:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. DrKiernan 09:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Awadewit
Overall, I thought this was a very good article; the section on WWII was particularly well-written and easy to follow. Here are my suggestions.

Awadewit 09:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead does not seem to summarize the article as a whole. It only summarizes Edward's life up until his abdication.
 * Yes, that's an omission. I've just added a single, simple sentence. DrKiernan 10:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, the King, though a harsh disciplinarian, was demonstrably affectionate and Queen Mary displayed a frolicksome side when dealing with her children that belies her austere public image, having been greatly amused by the children making tadpoles on toast for their French master[2], and encouraged them to confide matters in her which it would have provoked the King to know.[3] - run-on sentence
 * Split in two, "harsh disciplinarian, demonstrably affectionate" needs a reference. DrKiernan 10:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Added two references. DrKiernan 17:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you decide to go for FA at any point, the article will probably need more citations.
 * I agree with the previous reviewer that there are too many lists (although I consider lists internal to the prose as lists as well). For example, do we really need to know all of his godparents or all of the titles he gained when his father ascended the throne?
 * I've removed the lesser titles after Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay. DrKiernan 10:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've moved the godparents to a footnote. DrKiernan 08:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * When the First World War (1914–18) broke out Edward had reached the minimum age for active service and expressed keenness to participate. - awkward use of "keenness"
 * Yes, I've tried to simplify that sentence. DrKiernan 10:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Throughout the 1920s the Prince of Wales represented his father, King George V, at home and abroad on many occasions. He took a particular interest in visiting the poverty stricken areas of the country. - did he do anything for the poor or did he just visit?
 * He just visited. DrKiernan 10:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * He made unedifying and often deeply racist comments about the Empire's subjects and various foreign peoples, both during his career as Prince of Wales and later as Duke of Windsor, particularly in Africa and India but also in Canada, the West Indies, Mexico and Australia (see wikiquotes). - might you give an example here?
 * Ah, I'll think about this one, or maybe mention it on the talk page. This issue was contentious in the past. See:Talk:Edward VIII of the United Kingdom and Talk:Edward VIII of the United Kingdom. DrKiernan 10:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Well, I found the link to wikiquotes off-putting. Also, having a single quote to prove your claim isn't overloading the page or assassinating the man's character, in my opinion. I write about eighteenth-century figures; they often don't have opinions we wished they would have. That is just too bad. Besides, it wouldn't be interesting to read history if everyone agreed with us! Awadewit 10:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've persuaded me. Coming out of the article to look at wikiquotes and then in again is distracting. I shall find representative quotes and insert. DrKiernan 11:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, I apologize. I'm afraid this comment sounded condescending. I only just now looked at your user page. I should have before I started reviewing your pages. I don't think that I needed to go into my little spiel about the value of history. Sorry about that. I hate when other editors do that sort of thing to me. Awadewit 11:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's quite alright. I didn't take it that way at all. You also have to remember that other people have contributed to the article, and it's impossible to know whether they are Professors at Harvard or 6-year children! DrKiernan 12:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * At the height of his popularity, he became the most photographed celebrity of his time and his dress sense emulated by those in fashion. - "dress sense" is odd diction
 * Really? DrKiernan 10:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps only to American ears. To me, it should be "fashion sense". Awadewit 10:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've simplified it to "set men's fashion." DrKiernan 17:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * An enduring, albeit trivial, legacy is the fashion item of the Windsor knot, named for him after his fondness for large-knotted ties, though he did not necessarily wear the knot. - wordy sentence; also might you try to find a picture of the Windsor knot?
 * Yes, I've tried to simplify the sentence. DrKiernan 10:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've wikilinked to Windsor knot. DrKiernan 17:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * They hosted parties and shuttled between Paris and New York; many of those who met the Windsors socially reported on the vacuity of the Duke's conversation (see wikiquotes). - could you use examples instead?
 * See above. DrKiernan 10:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added a quote and two references. I should point out though that I've not read either Godfrey or Vidal, so I'm relying on wikiquotes being accurate. DrKiernan 17:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The "Titles, etc." and "Legacy" sections seem unnecessary to me. If you decide to keep the "Legacy" section, consider deleting some of the superfluous material, such as the Bugs Bunny example.
 * I shall mention this on the talk page of WikiProject British Royalty/Style guide. DrKiernan 10:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A small issue - not all of your notes are formatted the same way.
 * Amended. DrKiernan 17:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for comments! DrKiernan 10:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou
First of all, congratulations for your first FA.Thanks! It still needs some work though - the new paragraph structure has displaced sentences from their citations. DrKiernan 10:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)I am even more happy, because it is a Greek-related article! Now, my remarks for this article: --Yannismarou 09:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * From the lead: "When King, Edward ... " What is this, doing there?
 * Rephrased. DrKiernan 10:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * An advice: try not to interrupt sentences with inline citations; do it only if it is necessary for emphasis reasons. Prefer to place citations at the end of the sentences.
 * Yes, the inline citations interrupting the sentence are for the clauses only, not for the entire sentence. DrKiernan 10:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "He automatically became ... " You understand a brand new section, and, therefore, "he" looks ugly to me here. "Edward automatically ... "
 * Done. DrKiernan 10:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you go for FA, try not to have uncited paragraphs. I see one in "Military career".
 * Yes, I shall go through carefully and check everything again. DrKiernan 10:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "He made unedifying and often deeply racist comments ... " I am not sure about the adjectives ("unedifying") here. We tend to avoid them. A mere "racist" or maybe "deeply racist" would be fine IMO.
 * Done. DrKiernan 10:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Edward's unorthodox approach to his role extended also to the currency which bore his image. He broke with tradition whereby on coinage each successive monarch faced in the opposite direction to his or her prececessor. Edward insisted his left side was superior to that of his right, and that he face left (as his father had done). Only a handful of coins were actually struck prior to the abdication, and when George VI succeeded he also faced left, in order to maintain the tradition by suggesting that had any coins been minted featuring Edward's portrait, they would have shown him facing right." Uncited paragraph. And I am also not sure about "unorthodox approach".
 * I think "unorthodox approach" is supported by the two paragraphs above it. DrKiernan 10:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "the harassed King". Harassed?! Isn't it a bit exaggerated.
 * I have added a citation. DrKiernan 10:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "In September, 1939", "In February, 1940". We don't cite month-year per MoS; only date-month-year (e.g. February 2, 1940).
 * Yes, thanks for correcting that. DrKiernan 10:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * All the arguments in "World War II" are that he was a pro-Nazi. Aren't there any counter-arguments?
 * Good point. I have added his own defence written in his memoirs. DrKiernan 10:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would prefer "Legacy" before "Titles". It is prose, and part of the main body of the article.
 * I absolutely agree. DrKiernan 10:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is "Fashion" part of Legacy? I don't get it. And why two extrernal links, and no prose? What does this mean exactly?
 * Yes, that's always struck me as odd, but for some reason I've never bothered to do anything about it. DrKiernan 10:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Alphabetize categories at the end of the article. They are a mess!
 * I think they are arranged in order of precedence. I'd prefer to leave them as they are. DrKiernan 10:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)