Wikipedia:Peer review/House of Plantagenet/archive1

House of Plantagenet
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because, in my opinion it is very close to GA quality. The "deposed house" section is all that needs doing before it is nominated and I just wanted to see if there is anything else it needs.

Thanks, Yorkshirian (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from vernajast: The first step to cleaning up this article will be cleaning up the prose. I suggest finding a willing copyeditor to do so. In particular, the overuse of commas makes reading this article extremely difficult and confusing. I apologize for not giving a line-by-line review, but this problem inhibited me from clearly understanding the information being presented.

I don't know much on the specific subject, unfortunately, but I would like to point out a comment left on the article's talk page regarding French lineage (entitled "Terrific article !!!"). I'm concerned by the implication of bias against French involvement in the matters discussed in the article, and whether this is a real issue or not, it should be addressed, clarified, or otherwise made transparent.

Good luck with this article! It seems very interesting, but I don't think it's ready for GA just yet. vernajast&#124;angstwhore 18:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Nasty Housecat: This is a very good article, well researched and well-referenced, and does a nice job summarizing a complicated topic. Nice work. I will agree with vernajast that the prose is a bit tedious in places and could benefit from a good copyedit by someone not so close to the topic. I will disagree that it is far away from GA. I think the prose is up to the GA standard of "clear" and the spelling and grammar are correct. In my view it is not far from GA, with some improvements noted below:


 * The lead should summarize the article completely without introducing material not found in the body of the article. Here, you oversummarize the article in the first paragraph, and discuss culture and politics in the last two, which you do not actually cover in the article. I might suggest dedicating the first to the background and Henry II, the second to Edward and the Hundred Years War, and the last to the dynastic dispute and House of Tudor. Or something similar that might make more sense to you.


 * “After three ruling Lancastrian monarchs, the crown returned to senior primogeniture.…” This is confusing. Is primogeniture important here? Or is it important that Yorkists held the throne?


 * “killed in battle during 1485.” Perhaps “in 1485”?


 * At first glance, the “Tardy Adoption” article appears to be self-published, but it is actually a journal article, is it not? You might want to use the template to make it clear and display all the required information. And you need page numbers for each reference to it.


 * For web references, the website is the work, not the publisher.  So, work=brittanica.com, publisher = Encyclopedia Brittanica.


 * “The system and reforms put in place by Henry restored law and order to create a self-standing system which used…” Maybe “…and created a stable system of government managed by competent…”?


 * “It could operate smoothly with common law prevailing…” Maybe “it operated efficiently and common law prevailed, even if…”?


 * Would it be acceptable to use the anglicized spellings of the Irish and Welsh names?


 * “Henry allowed MacMurrough enough soldiers to instigate…” Maybe “Henry gave MacMurrogh enough soldiers to launch…”?


 * “Scotland who” You mean “Scotland which”?


 * The discussion of Beckett and his murder does not read well. It is too colloquial, you should cite the direct quote, and the last sentence appears apropos of nothing. Needs to be reworked.


 * Be careful in placing images not to sandwich text between them, as the Richard Lionheart and Magna Carta images do. Happens again a bit later.


 * English folklore. Does this need a link?


 * “Sold the island to Guy…” Guy who? Is there a link? This needs a citation, too.


 * Section headings generally cannot begin with articles. It should simply be “English Justinian.”


 * “Hereditarily “ Is that a word? Is there a better one?


 * “National Identity.” Does this need a link?


 * The Black Prince died in 1376. Needs citation.


 * The template is used “when a section is a summary of another article that provides a full exposition of the section.” Perhaps  or  would be better here. See WP:LAYOUT.


 * King of France is linked twice in the body. So is Tower of London. I happened to notice that, but do check for WP:OVERLINKing.


 * Does mental breakdown need a link?


 * You mention Eton College and then use an image of King’s College. I wonder why?


 * Watch for WP:WEASEL words. “Some have suggested.” “It is claimed.” Etc.


 * The Henry II of England image is a candidate for deletion due to copyright issues. You might want to find another one.


 * Many of the images have the wrong license tags. They are using PD-old when they should have PD-art. I went ahead and fixed the ones in the body of the article. Someone should fix the rest.


 * The Henry IV of England and Henry VI and Edward V files have been superseded. You might want to use the new ones.


 * The Baldwin and Almaric note needs a citation.


 * Please alphabetize the Bibliography for ease of use. “Bibliography” is problematic, as well. I suggest “Notes” for the note, “References” for the citations, and “Works cited” for the book list. There are other ways to do it. See WP:LAYOUT. Also, they should all be level 2 headings, level 3. See the example.

Of course, these comments are one editor's opinion and others might disagree. Thanks for all your hard work on this and good luck with the article in the future!

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the review and positive comments. I'll work my way through these. - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)