Wikipedia:Peer review/Israel the Grammarian/archive1

Israel the Grammarian
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it has passed GA and I would like to nominate it for FA. Advice on getting it to that standard gratefully received.

Thanks, Dudley Miles (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

A few copyediting comments, not a complete review. This is my imperfect understanding of what reviewers are looking for at FAC. - Dank (push to talk)
 * See WP:DASH.
 * I find this very complicated. If I understand correctly, en-dash should be used for page ranges such as 21–30 and compound words such as tenth–century, but hyphens should be used for compound names such as Charles-Edwards. Is this right, and is there a tool for this?
 * It's "tenth-century poet" (as an adj) but "in the tenth century" (as a noun). Personally, I stay away from the dash wars. - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "Flodoard's 'Israel Britto' "can be pressed as meaning 'Breton'",": FAC reviewers aren't likely to go along. The quote doesn't seem particularly trenchant, so don't quote, just use double quote marks for Britto and Breton.
 * Done.


 * I got down to Æthelstan's court and couldn't find any words I wanted to change, looks very good. - Dank (push to talk) 12:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Just beginning read-through. Only one query about the text: does Foot (ref 20) really spell "rarefied" as "rarified"? More soonest.  Tim riley  talk    18:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments from Tim riley
 * No - corrected. Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Background
 * "Michael Wood's view" – probably should link to Michael Wood (historian)
 * Done.


 * Does the citation to Wood at ref 3 cover the direct quote in the previous sentence?
 * Yes. Separate citation given to clarify.


 * Sources
 * If you agree that Wood should be linked at first mention, you'll want to remove the link at the end of this section.
 * Done.


 * Early life
 * Here, and later, I recommend blitzing all the "Michaels" in front of Woods and Lapidges. Just the surnames will do nicely after first mention. See WP:SURNAME.
 * Done.


 * "He was a disciple" – theoretically ambiguous. Safer to write "Israel was a disciple", perhaps.
 * Done.


 * "Wood's view is rejected by Æthelstan's biographer" – does Foot specifically address Wood's hypothesis or merely advance a different one?
 * Foot says "he was not, as some have tried to argue, Jewish, nor an Irishman". In a footnote she says that Wasserstein's Jewish theory has been invalidated and mentions Wood (without comment) as suggesting Israel was Irish. I have clarified that she mentions Wood's view. I have not mentioned the Jewish theory at this point as it seems to fit more naturally in the next section. The theory is only about the identity of the inventor of the gospel dice game, not the scholar, so Foot's remark is a bit misleading.


 * Later career
 * consistency of capitalising: you have "Archbishop of Trier", but "bishop of Aix-en-Provence".
 * Fixed


 * "whereas Wood dates it before the 967-8" – wording has gone off the rails here. I think perhaps the definite article has sneaked itself in and should go. Also, the WP style for date ranges is 967–68, with an en-dash and two numerals for the end date.
 * Fixed.

That's all from me. I enjoyed this article and learned a good deal. Please let me know when it gets to FAC.  Tim riley  talk    08:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for your very helpful comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)