Wikipedia:Peer review/Mandell Creighton/archive1

Mandell Creighton
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it's been almost a year and a half since I wrote (or rather completely rewrote) it and I'm now fearing forgetting its existence entirely if I don't get some feedback! user:Fifelfoo had offered to review it (see post on talk page), but never got around to doing it. Look forward to your constructive criticism. I should add I haven't looked at it since that frenetic week in early November 2009.

Thanks, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  07:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Tim Riley – first batch; more to come More over the next day or so. This is a most enjoyable task; it's a first rate article about a clearly first rate person. Tim riley (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Second and concluding batch of comments: That's all I can spot. Happy to elaborate on any of the above points if I have not made my meaning clear. I vastly enjoyed this article, and look forward to seeing it at FAC in due course. Please let me know when you nominate it and I shall add my two penn'orth to the nomination page. – Tim riley (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * "together the couple had seven children" – together as opposed to how?
 * Have just copy-edited the first five sections in light of your (very helpful) comments. Will post diffs and details here later.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed "together." Apparently an Americanism, a euphemistic way, perhaps, of referring to biological children in this age of blended families.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * General
 * You use a lot of quotation marks that do not seem to denote quotations. For example, "perpetuated family myth". If they are quotations you should attribute them and if they aren't you could lose the quotation marks.
 * Yup, I was horrified. It would have helped had I read the article once before submitting it.  Have removed them all I think or have attributions for the ones that remain.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * At FAC you will find Wiki-colleagues insisting that at first mention in each new paragraph, you use the name, not a pronoun. See, for instance, the second, third and fourth paras of Oxford undergraduate, 1862–1866.
 * That I hadn't realized in my writing. Very true.  All first mentions are now proper nouns.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oxford undergraduate, 1862–1866
 * "off-campus" strikes a jarringly anachronistic note; could you phrase this differently – "out of college" or some such?
 * :) Gone. Glad I didn't add, "he liked cruising for hamburgers off-off-campus after pulling allnighters."   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "His walking activity continued apace" – boom boom!
 * Changed to something less clunky as well.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "what Gladstone later was to dub 'Oxford's agony'." – I'm not quite clear what Gladstone was referring to here.
 * Have changed to: "He especially honed his skills in informal conversations, conducted anywhere and everywhere, about topics great and small, bearing easily the yoke of what Gladstone later was to dub "Oxford's agony," the habit of self-importantly seeing larger than life significance in Oxford's everyday disputes."   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A tad flowery perhaps!  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That's now beautifully clear (and not in the least flowery, me judice). Tim riley (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Whether this group friendship found physical expression, is not known." – I think this is a very dubious journalistic device, of the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" kind. Whether they bathed in treacle or slept standing on one leg is also not known, but why bring it up if there is no suggestion in the first place that they did so?
 * In light of your later remarks, I've left it in for now, but I agree that it is irrelevant without a more detailed description. I read some pages of Louise Creighton's Life and letters of Mandell ... and the descriptions there were quite unselfconscious.  Nothing was suspected by wife,  peers, friends, ....   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm realizing that I shouldn't be replying individually to all the points. Hereafter, you will mostly see me at the section's end.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Teaching and marriage, 1867–1874
 * "instituted at University of Oxford" – at the university, surely? And is the blue link helpful at this point?
 * No need to link "Christian" – see WP:OVERLINK
 * You have repeated the blue link for "high church" – helpful?
 * Hmm. I wonder if I have a sneaking sympathy for ritual ....  All gone now, all except the first.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "The lectures proved ominous" – many readers will find "ominous" odd here
 * Why mention Prince Leopold's medical condition? How is it relevant here?
 * I've taken it out, but it sounds anonymous now. :(   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "He had also become an admirer of Walter Pater" – well, perhaps I take back my fourth remark under Oxford undergraduate, 1862–1866, above.
 * :) Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "a study of the renaissance popes" – capital for "renaissance" or not? You used one earlier but not here
 * I've adopted all the suggestions and make some other changes as well. Here's the diff for it.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Vicar of Embleton, 1875–1884
 * "teetotalers" – spelling?
 * This is didn't know! I need a redlining editor for British (miss-)spellings.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * When I'm working on an article that has U.S. spelling, I copy and paste my text into Word and run the spell-check, which saves me from occasional clangers. Tim riley (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "empower" – is this link helpful to the reader?
 * " Most at least stayed overnight" – perhaps to avoid ambiguity " Most stayed at least overnight"?
 * Adopted all and with a diff to show.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cambridge professor, 1885–1891
 * "prime minister Gladstone" – horrible Americanism, some (e.g. me) might say
 * Hadn't thought about it, but this false politeness of American political discourse might be a way of balancing the accompanying rudeness. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Adopted all.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Bishop of Peterborough, 1891–1896
 * "Lord Salisbury, the Prime Minister" – consistency of upper and lower case for prime ministers?
 * "Dioceses of Peterborough" – why plural?
 * "Working classes" – is this link helpful to the reader?
 * "By April's end" – a bit poetic, perhaps, for an encyclopaedia article?
 * :) Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Prelate of Order of the Garter" – of the Order, surely?
 * Thanks! Your suggestions, adopted once, and then again, were most helpful.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Bishop of London, 1897–1901
 * "Aarchbishopric of Canterbury" – ordinarily I'd have silently amended an obvious typo, but I'm not sure if you wish a capital or lower case A here.
 * "or too frivolous, however, his star had risen" – stronger punctuation mark than a comma wanted here
 * "local rates taxes" – I think I'd lay this out as local taxes (i.e. silently linking to "Rates (tax)")
 * "houses of parliament" – I hesitate to be prescriptive about this, but lower case looks odd here, though there are, I admit, excellent reasons for using it
 * "low church clergy in his diocese were being provoked" – very slightly tendentious phrasing, perhaps? Could it be taken as implying that the goings-on of the high church lot were "provocative"? Would "were taking exception to" be more neutral?
 * :) Good point.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "his more strident evangelical supporters" – again, playing for safety, might "more vocal" or some such be more neutral here?
 * Adopted all.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Legacy
 * "Creighton's reputation as a historian is considered the more enduring one" – it would help your reader, I think, if you spelled out what the rival features of his reputation could be
 * "Tripos (in the Levine quotation) – this is linked earlier; is it helpful to link it again here? Not sure
 * "According to historian(s)" – this phrase is used three times in fairly close proximity – perhaps rephrase the second mention (Evans)?
 * Yup, very irritating! Two have been marched to the gallows.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "in actions, in contrast to Lord Acton" – I think perhaps just "Acton" the second time in this para.
 * Good point, that American politeness all over again.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Adopted all your suggestions.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Character
 * "canny intelligence, however, at social gatherings" – stronger punctuation mark than a comma wanted here
 * Yeah, I noticed that in other places as well. Doesn't sound like me, but then it was a funny week, that, in November 2009.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "travelers" – British spelling wanted here, I think
 * You got it.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * General – I greatly like your quotation boxes – they break the text up very pleasingly and their contents are distinctly to the point. I notice that all five have the same background colour; have you considered varying it from one to another? Too busy an effect, perhaps (and I confess I know not what if anything the Manual of Style has to say on such matters). Anyway, it's just a thought.
 * I've done up the info boxes in different pastels; or rather, I've tried to. Some look too bright.   Delighted that you chose to review the article!  Your remarks were fun to read (and adopt).  Will let you know at FAC time.  Fer sure.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the different coloured boxes look excellent. If any experts think any of the shades too bright they will offer guidance at FAC, I have no doubt. I look forward to meeting Dr. C. again at FAC. Tim riley (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)