Wikipedia:Peer review/Eleanor of Castile/archive1

Eleanor of Castile

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it ready for a GA submission in the near future. This would be my second GA attempt. Eleanor is not a well-known English Queen but is receiving more interest as historians take a closer look at female figures holding power in the medieval period, however she is also a controversial figure because of her land dealings, as you can find out by reading the article!

Thanks, Jim Killock (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim, I will add my comments soon. Cheers. Matarisvan (talk) 07:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

@JimKillock: Comments after a quick skim:

The yellow "copyedit needed" banner at the top of the article needs to be resolved.
- Done: see below: I've also asked for a checkover from the GoCE. --Jim Killock (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Access to these cut-price land bonds can be viewed as a form of royal patronage" needs a citation
- Done --Jim Killock (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph starting with "Not all or even the majority of the lands Eleanor acquired" needs a citation.
- Done --Jim Killock (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First paragraph in "Other income" needs a citation.
- Done --Jim Killock (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Her household food supplies appears to have reflected her Spanish upbringing, including supplies of French cheese and fresh fruit. She also kept a connection with Acre and her time in the Crusades, ordering foodstuffs and other items from the city throughout her time in England." Needs a citation.
- Done --Jim Killock (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many sources are listed in the "Sources" section but are not used in the article as inline citations. These include "Dilba, Carsten (2009)", "Tolan, John (2023)", "Stokes, H. P. (1915)", "Reynolds, Gordon (2023)", and "Parsons, John Carmi (1997)"
- Part Done: moved these unused sources into "Further reading"; except Tolan who will be used to help fix the issues above. I haven't gone through all of the sources to find others that are not used yet. --Jim Killock (talk) 12:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the "sources" section split between "Eleanor of Castile" and "Web sources"?
- Removed: the reason was really that these aren't the right kind of source for a history article, so it was a way for me to isolate those which while reliable, could and should be improved. --Jim Killock (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"lincolnian (24 March 2006)": Flickr is not considered a reliable source, so this should be removed.
- Done: I removed the image that depicts these figures. It is problematic as lincolnian states but I haven't been able to find a source that explains that the restored images were believed and (newly) intended to be of Edward and Eleanor, only that the images were restored and caused some controversy at the time. The footnote therefore may need to go. --Jim Killock (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Will deal with these.

Note, someone recently added the copyedit banner: I have since late December done a lot of work on the copy, which was largely uncited and in a very poor state indeed. This included removing very personal commentary and non-neutral language from the article, so I have got a bit mentally saturated on the point, and could really do with someone new taking a hard look at the copy as it stands. Jim Killock (talk) 04:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

I have enjoyed reading and reviewing this article. I'm a bit busy at the moment, but here are a few drive-by comments on the text. I hope to offer more shortly when time permits.

"After intense diplomatic manoevres" – spelling
"not obliged to travel to fulfill their vow" – preferred BrE spelling is "fulfil", in the OED.
"for Eleanor's half brother" – the OED hyphenates this
"to limit the fall out" – the OED makes this one unhyphenated word, but it looks a bit to 20th-century to me, and I wonder if "consequences" or some such might be less anachronistic.
"self limited her role" – I think I'd hyphenate this, though I'm not certain the "self" adds anything.
"Her household food supplies appears" – plural noun with singular verb
"She was a keen horserider" – two words, not one, in the OED
"and employed Spanish horsebreeders" – hyphenated in the OED
"the University of Oxford and the University of Cambridge" – a bit wordy: what about "the universities of Oxford and Cambridge"?
"could not tolerate the rigors of constant travel" – spelling
"childrearing" – hyphenated in the OED
"Traces of her temper can probably also be intimated in her personal relations." – not quite sure what this means
"if any one crossed her" – normally "anyone" is one word
"The nature of the medicines is not specified, so it is impossible" – in my elderly book "so" is not a conjunction in formal English. I suggest "and" rather than "so".
"a tour north through Eleanor's properties was commenced" – "commenced" is rather a refained word: what about just "began"?
"but was destroyed in 1647 and later replaced by a statue of Charles I" – destroyed by whom? Worth telling us, if you know.
"was destroyed in the 17th century" – ditto
"However" - I lost count of the howevers after ten. The word is seldom needed and generally clogs up the prose. I suggest you go through and remove all those that don't help the flow of the text.

Hope these points are useful. The "copy edit" banner is quite uncalled for and I have removed it. I'll be back later, I hope, Tim riley talk 15:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, that's very helpful, I've done all of those except re the destruction of her tomb in Lincoln, which I expect was Parliamentary / army / Puritan related but will need to check. Jim Killock (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]