Wikipedia:Peer review/Thomas de Veil/archive1

Thomas de Veil
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working a lot on this article, and I am now stuck. I can't decide whether I should add anything else or leave it as it is. My main problem, right now, is trying to decide whether I should add a section on his most important cases or not: I've tried to add some examples, but every time it felt as if I was getting out of topic. I definitely need help.

Thanks, 858rine (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

– Here are my thoughts on peer reviews. Sometimes I post comments in parts. Runfellow (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments, Part 1 (Lead to Early life)
 * General notes
 * You'll want to add some alt text for the profile image in the infobox and the Hogarth engraving.
 * You'll want to add Template:Subscription required to the Oxford DNB article. Is there anywhere else that contains this information? You've referenced it a lot.

This lead could certainly be expanded. This section should contain a summary of each section. As a very general rule, every section should get its own sentence, perhaps every subsection. Check out WP:LEAD for more.
 * Lead
 * The title "Col." is located above the profile image, but not in the intro sentence. Perhaps it should be there as well. See WP:FULLNAME.
 * Perhaps wikilink Esq.?
 * The "also known as" name should be in parentheses and in boldface. See WP:FULLNAME.
 * You'll want his estimated birth and death dates in parentheses after his full name. See WP:OPENPARAGRAPH and WP:BORN.
 * "he was known for" should be "he is known for".
 * This is all one sentence. You could easily split it and by doing so make the text clearer. The semicolon – although used correctly – seems superfluous anyway.

Runfellow (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Early life
 * Replace the colon after "unclear" with a period and begin a new sentence. Simple sentences are always best.
 * Always be wary of using the phrase "is said to". If it has not been firmly established, tell us who says it. If this is not in dispute, simply say "De Veil left home when..."
 * I'd split the sentence that begins with "He fought at..." after "1707".
 * How did he catch the attention of those two men? I'm curious.
 * "who would then bestow"
 * I believe it should be "whom" here.
 * When is "then" in this case?
 * "Returning to England" <- Add "After" to the beginning of this sentence.
 * This sentence is simply too long: "He retired to the countryside and lived upon the half pay provided by the army until he had dispensed of his debts, upon which he returned to London in search of a second source of income, and became a political lobbyist with an office in Whitehall: his work at this time consisted of "soliciting at the war-office, the treasury, and other public boards, drawing petitions, cases, and representations, memorials, and such kind of papers, for which he kept an office in Scotland-yard"."
 * "dispensed of his debts" <- Would "paid off his debts" work here, or were there other factors involved?
 * Let's end that sentence after "debts" and then begin the next with "After doing so, he returned to London..."
 * Then end that sentence with "income". Begin the next with "He became a political..." End that sentence with "Whitehall".
 * Delete "at this time".
 * The quote should not be in italics.
 * I'm not sure about the phrase "Thanks to his diligence". This is a very very minor NPOV issue, but one nonetheless.

Comments, Part 2 (Career, Personal life, and Controversies) Overall, I'd say you could add some detail to this section. I'm a big believer in WP:SUMMARY, and I think so many articles are overwritten and overly detailed, but there's quite a bit you could flesh out here. Who gave him these positions? What were some of his other more notorious cases? What did his contemporaries say about him? You mention in your request that you are thinking about adding a section on his cases. I think I'd just include them here, rather than add a section. That's not getting off-topic; it's just giving us solid examples of his notable work. Go for it.
 * Career
 * Comma after "peace"
 * Replace the "he" with "de Veil". In general, it's best to use surname in biographies, not pronouns. See WP:SURNAME.
 * Replace "He would move" with "He moved". Delete "sometime".
 * Replace "he would be" with "he was" and start a new sentence with those words.
 * The sentence "He broke up many criminal gangs, the most famous (and the one from which he gained the most recognition) being the one led by William Wreathock, a Hatton Garden attorney, in 1735." is rather ungainly. Is there a way to make this into multiple sentences so that it's clearer and easier to read?
 * As I mentioned above, quotes should not be in italics. You'll also need a source for this particular quote listed in the actual article ("Biographer Philip Sugden wrote that de Veil was 'more willing than most'...")
 * In general, you can wikilink something twice in an article: once in the lead, and once in the article itself. I'd definitely recommend linking the Gin Act 1736 here.
 * "He was noted" by whom?
 * "September of 1744" <- Delete "of"
 * Unless this is a British English thing (I'm American), replace "co-operation" with "cooperation".
 * "he was granted a sinecure" by whom?
 * Begin a new sentence after "₤600 per year".
 * You should definitely tell us who knighted him.
 * Delete "however"
 * "trading justice" should not be in italics.

While I mentioned above that the Career section could be longer and more detailed, this feels a bit too detailed. It is written in the style of a genealogical document rather than an encyclopedia.
 * Personal life
 * I'd be wary of saying "little is known about de Veil's personal life" unless your sources state that specifically. How much is "little" and how much is a lot is subjective, if you think about it.
 * "The two did not see eye to eye on many issues, the most known - and the one that lead Hogarth to depict him with clear parodistic intent in Night, part of the set of prints titled 'Four Times of the Day'' - being the Gin Act of 1736." <- This is another sentence you'll have to split up. You've got many ideas you're trying to express in one sentence:
 * They didn't agree on some issues.
 * One of those issues was the Gin Act 1736.
 * Hogarth depicted de Veil parodically in Night.
 * Night was part of a series titled Four Times of the Day.
 * "twenty-five children" <- First of all, holy guacamole. Secondly, numbers larger than nine are spelled out, so this would be 25. See WP:NUMERAL.
 * You can probably merge that one sentence paragraph with the one below it about his first wife.
 * "Mrs Anne Hancock" You'll want to check the MOS about this, but I think you would put her maiden name here. You almost certainly wouldn't include the Mrs. unless she was committing bigamy.
 * End the sentence after "Westminster". The son and daughter are their own subject for their own sentence.
 * "Little is known about his daughter, [...] while slightly more is known about his son" <- See the point above.
 * "a Mr Thomas" <- If we don't know anything about this guy at all, even a first name, I'd just delete the name entirely. It's not important to the article.
 * "would go on to become" <- "became"
 * Delete "several", then "some". These words don't really tell us much, because they are subjective or vague.
 * The New Exchange is an external link to a source or something. You'll want to fix that.
 * Put a colon after "three children by her" so the sentence is clearer.
 * "a Mr Kingsman" <- See the point above on Mr Thomas.
 * You say "at the time of his death" but don't have a death date. Does anyone know?
 * These last few paragraphs could probably be merged in some way.

As I'll note, there are some WP:NPOV issues here you should be aware of. In fact, you might consider integrating this section into the Career section. See WP:CRIT for further guidance, but remember that you are required to give due weight to every side.
 * Controversies
 * Be very careful of phrases like "Some considered". These are WP:WEASEL words and should be avoided whenever possible. Tell us who considered de Veil a "trading justice".
 * You should use the semicolon here. Good job.
 * "and/or who would encourage litigation" <- Delete "who"
 * "there appears to be no real evidence to corroborate the theory." <- If this is a quote from your source, say "Philip Sugden believes there is no real evidence...". If this is from your own research, don't say it. See WP:NOR.
 * "could be made" <- It could be, or it is? If it is, by whom?
 * Begin a new sentence after "trials".
 * "his biographer" <- Which one? I know it's anonymous from the sources, but you might want to add that.
 * "Some, however, have argued" <- See my point above. Who has argued this?
 * "no documented evidence supports these assertions." <- See my other point above regarding original research.

Sometimes these peer reviews seem a little harsh and cold, but that's not what they're intended to be! Here are a few positives of the article:
 * Positive notes
 * I enjoy its succinctness. I've mentioned some things above that you can elaborate on, but as editors we sometimes get caught up in the details and want to include everything. I feel as though I know what should know about this person when I've read the article. There's no superfluous junk sentences.
 * The style is crisp and clear. You haven't tried to throw in academic buzzwords or anything like that.
 * The references are clear and easy to follow.
 * Perhaps most importantly, you've helped make this subject fascinating!

Please let me know if you need anything further. Runfellow (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)