Wikipedia:Peer review/Gilbert de Clare, 8th Earl of Gloucester/archive1

Gilbert de Clare, 8th Earl of Gloucester

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I often tend to make silly mistakes when writing. I'd especially like comnets on language, readability and clarity.

Thanks, Lampman (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Definitely right up my alley - I'll look at this tonight or tomorrow - doesn't everyone spend their New Year's Eve peer reviewing articles on Wikipedia? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

If not, they haven't really lived. Thanks! Lampman (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the article with that in mind. I reviewed the article as I would at FAC.
• Lead:
  • Linkie to "earl"?
  • Looks odd to list the title for Gilbert de Clare (7th earl) but no title at all for Edward I - suggest explaining that Edward I was king of England (pesky little detail ...)
  • What "northern border"? Context for the non-specialist
  • Again - who is Edward II??
  • avoid linking things next to each other, such as with "king's favourite Piers Gaveston in 1311"
  • Second paragraph of lead seems more about Despenser than about Clare...
  • The lead is disportionate on the aftermath after he died - most of the article is about his life, but about a third of the lead deals with events after his death - needs rebalancing.
• Family background:
  • I believe we use double quotes for things like nicknames - thus "...known as Gilbert "the Red"..."
  • Again - need title or explanation of who "Edward I" is.
• Early service:
  • Probably need a bit more context on the Scottish Wars here - why is Robert the Bruce involved, what are the English doing fighting in Scotland, etc.
  • "He had no personal interest in the region, but the Welsh Marches, where his landed interest lay, were largely pacified at the time, and Scotland presented a good opportunity to pursue military glory and reward." Runon sentence, suggest reworking.
  • In the second paragraph, you suddenly shift to calling Gilbert "Gloucester" here without any explanation to the reader - suggest keeping with Gilbert - that's the general trend on our encyclopedia - we don't follow the historian convention of using the highest title. Keeping to one name used is part of the MOS, somewhere...
  • "After this, he seems to have been reconciled with the king, and in 1309 he acted as a mediator when the earls agreed to Gaveston's return." - Who seems? The last person mentioned was Gaveston...
  • Linkie - Lords Ordainer - there's an article somewhere...
• Escalation:
  • "In spite of his participation in the baronial reform movement..." uh, huh? What baronial reform movement? Do you mean the opposition to Gaveston? (I actually know this is the case, but most readers won't have the background knowledge to know this)
  • "The earls divided the country into different parts for defence..." which earls? The preceding sentence mentions "baronial opposition" - nothing about earls...
  • The discussion of Gaveston's death is very confused ... especially so to a non-expert in the area. I know the background enough to be able to figure it out, but it's got some context missing here - why if Warwick captured Gaveston, did Valence have custody - and then why was Valence concerned for Gaveston's safety enough to appeal to Gloucester? Very confusing to someone not knowledgable about the time period.
  • "There were still a number of great lords in the king's company, including Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford, Pembroke and Gloucester." The way this is phrased it implies that Bohun was earl of Hereford, Pembroke AND Gloucester - suggest rewording.
  • Any idea of the size of Edward's army? Might fit good in between these sentences: "These men were valuable to the king for their ability to raise large numbers of troops from their dominions in the Welsh Marches.[31] On 23 June 1314, the royal army had passed Falkirk and was within a few miles of Stirling."
• Death:
  • "According to the Vita Edwardi, when Edward grew angry and accused Gloucester of treason.." what's the Vita? context. Ah, I see you give some in the next paragraph... needs to be at the first mention of the Vita.
• Dispersal:
  • Was this really the end of the Clare family? Weren't there side branches?
• Sources - I don't see Barbour, Grey, or Stevenson used as sources in the article - they shouldn't be listed as sources. Also, you list the Childs as Vita Edwardi in the references - but under Childs in the sources - this makes it more difficult for the reader to find the source.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 15:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)