Wikipedia:Peer review/Richard of Dover/archive1
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC at some point, and would welcome suggestions on how to improve the prose, and how to make it more understandable for the non-medievalist.
Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 19:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: The article needs a thorough copyedit. Some of the sentences are clumsily constructed, and punctuation is wayward. I have raised some instances below, but the list isn't exhaustive.
- Lead
- Second sentence has three unrelated facts, with sparse punctuation. Also, employed by Becket in what capacity?
- "Roger, archbishop..." - surely archbishop should be capitalized?
- archbishops missing apostrophe
- link required first mention of papacy
- link required first mention of canon law - you link it later in article
- Early Life
- Again three unrelated facts in one sentence. Information missing - when he became a monk, when he became chaplain (possibly not stated in sources?)
- The first notice of him in history can presumably be dated
- Can you explain or link Christ Church?
- Prior of St Martin's priory" - would "Prior of St Martin's" be sufficient?
- "Right before" Becket's death sounds clumsy. Immediately before would be better.
- Same sentence: repeat of Becket's name should be avoided. In fact, the whole sentence needs reworking
- There is a further awkward repetition of Becket in the final sentence.
- Archbishop
- It is not necessary to spell out in full, or link, King Henry II of England in the first sentence. "King Henry" would do.
- Is there a possible link for Odo? There are dozens of Odos on the dab page - is one of them him?
- It is not immediately clear to the reader who the charges of simony etc were laid against.
- "After hearing the charges, they were dismissed" is unclear, and ungrammatical if you mean that the charges were dismissed. Perhaps: "After the hearing the charges were dismissed".
- What is the election suddenly mentioned? He was chosen by the king - did some election process follow?
- Unnecessary repetition of the year 1174
- Comma missing after "Canterbury" (there are commas missing in other places, too)
- Phrases like "in the end" sound vague and informal. "Finally" sounds better,
- "dependent on the pope direct" is awkward. "..directly dependent on the pope"?
- "his great predecessor" sounds POV. A word like "renowned" might be safer
- The semi-colon before "but" should be a comma. Or, better still, divide the sentence.
- Spelling: "acquiesced"
- This section becomes a bit of a jumble of facts. I wonder if they could be arranged in a more orderly way?
- Final section
- commas required after 1184 and colic.
This has been a bit hurried but I hope gives you something to work on. Brianboulton (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- He's a bit of a muddle, all in all. I think I'm not quite mined out on information on him, and he's in a time frame I'm not as familiar with, so it's been harder to write about him. I'm not entirely sure he will make it to FA, honestly, he just feels skimpy. Anyway, thankee for the comments, They all help! (You should know by now that commas and punctuation are an issue for me, same for some spelling (grins). Content, not copyediting!) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)