Wikipedia:Peer review/Hugh Candidus/archive1

Hugh Candidus
This peer review discussion has been closed. This 12th–century monk of the Benedictine monastery at Peterborough was an historian, hence my choosing this peer-review topic. If you feel that this biography should be reviewed as a philosophy and religion topic, not a problem; let me know. I have been advised to submit this article for peer-review as it may be a suitable GAN candidate. I will do all I can to assist any reviewer by addressing any issues as quickly as I am able.

Thanks, Senra (Talk) 15:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. I think it needs some work before it would pass GAN, though it is not too far off - here are some suggestions for improvement. *Current ref four is "See "Abbot of Peterborough"." with a wikilink - but Wikipedia is not a reliable source. See WP:CITE and WP:V --Senra (Talk) 22:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC) *1st sentence of Life is long and complex and could probably be split into two. --Senra (Talk) 22:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC) *Awkward Hugh's chief teachers were Abbot Ernulf and his brother Reginald, of both of whom he speaks in terms of warm affection.[1] perhaps something like Hugh's chief teachers were Abbot Ernulf and his brother Reginald; he wrote of both in terms of warm affection later in his life.[1] --Senra (Talk) 09:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead is only one sentence and should be longer per WP:LEAD. One thing that could be added are his alternate names as listed in the infobox and article.
 * To expand it further, the lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
 * The major problem I think that this would have at GAN is with a lack of references in places. For example the entire second paragraph of Written work has no refs, and three of the other four paragraphs end with at least two sentences with no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. I would also say anything that sounds like it is quoting someone else needs a ref - "it has been remarked that" or "it has been conjectured that" - who said this?
 * Any idea where he was born or anything about his family or more on his brother? If this is unknown, it could be mentioned that it is unknown
 * Since he is known chiefly for his history, I would add more to the article on the history of his manuscript and critical reception / study of it by later scholars. Where are the manuscripts (or is their just one manuscript) today?
 * A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - Stigand is an FA and may be a good model. There are also numerous FAs on authors that may be good models.
 * Could File:Hedda stone.jpg be used in the article - would he have likely seen it in the old church? Could a map of the location of Petersborough be added? Just trying to think of images that could be added.
 * This is a useful observation though not sure if it is appropriate for the article for two reasons (1) two images would be bad (small article) and (2) there is not too much about the Hedda Stone which would allow us to confirm it was present in the monastery when Hugh was there --Senra (Talk) 22:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Another way to expand the article would be to add more background and context - what were the jobs he did / positions he held in the monastery, for example?


 * Thank you for the above. I will work on this over the next few days --Senra (Talk) 09:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)