Wikipedia:Peer review/Piers Gaveston, 1st Earl of Cornwall/archive1

Piers Gaveston, 1st Earl of Cornwall

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's close to FA status. I would particularly appreciate language ce, but any comments are welcome!

Thanks, Lampman (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Pretty good, but the lead is rather short and I think (having recently read Mortimer on Mortimer) that more, and earlier emphasis should be placed on his arrogance and rudeness. Whether or not he was gay, grasping or smothering other access, he evidently saw little need to cultivate good relations with anyone except the king & was just really rude to the magnates, who were easily offended. A bit might be added on the expectations of the magnates. Otherwise should be ok at FA on a broad view. Johnbod (talk) 01:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for your input, I'll take it under consideration! Lampman (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

Very little I can see that would benefit from revision. This is a fine article, and looks to me to be ready for FAC. My meagre gleaning of quibbles:

• Family background and early life
  • king (lower case) of England but Duke (upper case) of Aquitaine in the same line – looks odd
• Ordinances and final exile
  • Double, rather than single, quotation marks would be the Wikipedia norm here, I think.
  • The political climate became so hateful – the adjective is a tricky one: I take it to mean here "full of hate", but it is generally used as a synonym of "odious". It might be safer to rephrase.
• Aftermath
  • "extralegal" – the OED hyphenates this word and defines it as "beyond the province of law; not regulated by law". From what you say, it seems to me that the killing of Gaveston was not extra-legal, but illegal – the article includes "People murdered in England" as one of its categories.
• Historical assessment
  • Philip – another place where the WP norm is double quotes rather than (as here) single.
• Notes
  • Note 52 – unexpected semicolon towards the end.

Please let me know when this article is at FAC. I will be pleased to add my voice in support. – Tim riley (talk) 08:54, 7 May 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 sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. (As well as the rest of the article...)
  • Agree with Johnbod about the lead and more needed on his arrogance (although relying on Mortimer ... blech.)
  • Lead: "...and was assigned to the household of the king's son, Edward of Carnarvon." Suggest amending to "Carnarvon, the future Edward II." to make it clear to those who won't know that Ed of Carnie is actually Eddie II.
  • Lead: For parity - give Thomas of Lancaster's title to balance Beauchamp.
  • Family background: Gaston VII was viscount of bearn, right? Give his title.
  • Family background: "...he became a member of the household of the young Prince Edward – the future Edward II." this is weird to have the aside that Prince Edward became Edward II here, as we've already mentioned Prince Edward earlier. Better to mention the "later King Edward II" at the first mention of Prince Edward.
  • Family background: "Though the two were reconciled at a later point... " - which two? King and Prince? King and Piers? Piers and Prince? Unclear and needs clarity here.
  • First exile: "...and £260 of money."? Awkward. Suggest cutting "of money" as it's unneeded.
  • Earl: You mention in the lead that Margaret de Clare was Edward's neice, but not in the body.
  • Ireland: You never mention exactly when Piers left for Ireland or arrived. Is this known?
  • Ireland: "...he won over several of the earls who had previously been of a hostile disposition." awkward - suggest " ...he won over several of the earls who had previously been hostile to Gaveston."
  • Ordinances: Might be nice to give a list of all the ordainers in a footnote/explanatory note.
  • Ordinances: "Edward II had, almost immediately after his accession, abandoned the relentless Scottish campaigns of his father." I don't think it needs the commas.
    • • • ""Edward II had abandoned the relentless Scottish campaigns of his father almost immediately after his accession." no? Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Return: Link for Flanders?
  • Return: "At the same meeting the barons – under the leadership of Lancaster..." What meeting? This is the first mention of a meeting.
  • Aftermath: "...and ordered them to bring it back outside his jurisdiction." "bring it back outside" is awkward - suggest "return it outside"?
  • Question: Are the Annales Paulini and Lanercost contemporary records? Suggest giving some small note if they are or not
  • Question: "The portrayal of Gaveston as homosexual continued in fictional portrayals.." can we eliminate one of these portrayals?
  • Question: "This same view is also expressed by..." I assume it's the same view as by Hamilton, but better to be clear here.
  • Historical assessment: You've got some duplicate links in here - Lanercost Chronicle, Tout, etc.
  • Historical: "This was the impression that lived on in the popular imagination." Uncited. Needs citing.
  • You need to consult Phillips' new biography of Edward II (which I'm still reading so I cant help here) for his views on Gaveston.

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.) 15:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)