Wikipedia:Peer review/Heraldry/archive1

Heraldry
Great article, full of great info. Its very hard to follow and not well organized. Too many contributors with too many points. Needs a unifying force. Any suggestions on how to make it less unjointed? I'll be willing to make changes once I get them. Also it has far too many external links, I thinks.--Forlornandshorn 21:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Inline references on facts would be great (although I wouldn't envy the task after looking at the further reading list!) There seem to be some inconsistencies in style within the article.  For instance, I see some mixed British and American spelling.  I agree that it's lacking in overarching organization.  For instance, the section "Shield and lozenge" seems misplaced.  I would put that discussion in the section that introduces the parts of the arms (where  Image:Coatarms-labld.png is broken down).
 * Speaking of, that image's license seems to be in confusion. Image:Coatarms labld.jpg is marked GFDL, so I assume that the image itself was created by a Wikipedian and licensed as such, while the permission is for the use of the arms rather than the specific image.  Is that right?  If so that should be clarified on both images.
 * Basically, all the design elements of arms should be somehow grouped together under a unifying section. I would break down the parts of arms first, before getting absorbed in the sheild (sticking to general -> specific progression).  Especially since there are many references to supporters, crest != arms, etc. scattered all over the place, you can save a lot of repetition by tackling those definitions early.  So my sections would look like something like this:
 * Elements in heraldry
 * Helm and crest
 * Motto
 * Supporters
 * Shields and lozenges
 * Divisions of the field
 * Charges
 * Marshalling
 * Ordinaries
 * Tinctures
 * Where you put "national styles" and "origins and history" is up in the air. The quote in the history section doesn't seem useful for the reader of a one page history of heraldry, especially when there's no other discussion of the split in heralidric law and what practical consequences it had.  I think "rights, wrongs and myths" does not belong so prominently placed in the article.
 * The external links seem well organized unti you get to the "other" links. Clearly Burkes deserves a link, but what about a portugese article on Brazilian arms?  Surely that isn't vital to a general Heraldry article.  If a significant number of them really do need to stay, at least organize them more than just lumping under "other".  The "see also" list is also long enough to either be cut back to a quarter it's current size or organized thematically (surely since the New Zealand branch of the Heraldry Society is reachable from The Heraldry Society it's not particularly in need of an extra entry - or how relevant is a defunct American organization - or why is UK topics listed there??).  &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 14:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For starters, please use inline citations. The pictures at 'Shield and lozenge' need to be formatted, they are so large they force horizontal scrolling. See also is HUGE, it needs to be trimmed down.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)