Wikipedia:Peer review/Regularis Concordia (Winchester)/archive1

Regularis Concordia (Winchester)
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review.

Thanks, Andreabee12 (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Andreabee12. I am listing my comments below.  I am formatting the comments by section, followed by ratings on the Quantitative Metric system for the article as a whole.  For more information about ratings, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy/Assessment.

General Note Ethelwold of Winchester Historical context Theatrical ritual Manuscripts
 * Section headers, according to the Wikipedia Style Manual, should be written in sentence form, not title form. This means that only the first word of the header title and proper nouns should be capitalized.  Examples: "The Cat in the Hat" or "Stage management."
 * Is it possible to change the section header to the spelling of Aethelwold used in the section body? Also, consider mentioning the varied spellings of the name.  This could aid readers in further research.
 * In the cases where you use "which", a comma should precede the word.
 * Make sure you are consistently italicizing Regularis Concordia throughout the article.
 * Can you explain what "alternating song" means?
 * Is it possible to find sources to bring in the specific staging and property notes used in the Regularis?
 * Be sure to consistently capitalize "Latin"
 * Words in other languages should be italicized. Additionally, I think the Latin quote needs quotation marks.
 * Are there differences in the two manuscripts listed? If so, is it possible to discuss the differences?

Metric Rating Keep up the good work and let me know if you have any questions. Happy editing! Jcbjaw12 (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comprehensiveness: 7 (I think you can add more details about theatrical rituals and the manuscripts.)
 * Sourcing: 6 (Good use of citations- just fix the Latin quote!)
 * Neutrality: 2 (The opening sentence has a very strong opinion of the significance of the work.)
 * Readability: 2 (I wanted to give this a 3 because the writing is clear, however there are a few grammatical inconsistencies at necessitate the 2.)
 * Formatting: 2 (Just fix the headers so they are consistent with Wikipedia's style manual.)
 * Illustrations: 2 (Excellent eye grabbing and relevant images.)