Jump to content

Talk:Magna Carta/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 19:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley talk 19:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is going to take long. This article seems to me of extremely high quality, and I hope it will soon be making its appearance at peer review on its way to FAC. There are, needless to say, some niggles at this stage.

  • General
    • Parenthetical dashes – the MoS bids us use either spaced en-dashes or unspaced em-dashes. You have spaced em-dashes, which need changing.
    • Piping of titles: not sure of your reasoning here: Lord So-and-So is piped in full but Sir Whatnot Thingummy has his "Sir" outside the link. And you pipe the job title for "King John" in the lead, but not in the main text. On the wider matter of naming kings, why just "James I" and "Charles I" but "King Henry I", "King Edward I", "King Henry VI" etc? And I am not sure of your policy capitalising the job title: "In one sense this was not unprecedented; other kings had previously conceded the right of individual resistance to their subjects if the king did not uphold his obligations. Magna Carta was however novel in that it set up a formally recognised means of collectively coercing the King". I recommend a quick consultation of MOS:JOBTITLES, though I'm not sure I altogether understand it. As long as you're happy that you're consistent I have no further comment on the matter.
I think that bit is correct as per MOS:JOBTITLES, which requires capitalisation if "the King" is standing in for a specific named king, lower case if it's not. "other kings" are general, so lower case. "the king" is a generic king, so lower case. "coercing the King" refers to John specifically, so is upper case. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see! Fine, Tim riley talk 21:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...though I did feel like a medieval cleric arguing about angels and pins as I wrote it (and others may have a different interpretation, of course!) Hchc2009 (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead
    • Is it strictly accurate to say that the charter was issued by King John at Runnymede on 15 June 1215? Agreed then but not issued until 19 June according to your main text.
    • "The charters, however, did not address" – there are 18 "howevers" in the article and one starts to notice them after a time. Most "howevers" can be removed with no damage to the meaning and some gain to readability. Not a sticking point for GAN, but do review if you are going on, as I hope you will, to FAC.
  • Great Charter of 1297: statute
    • "not prepared to concede this, however they agreed" – stronger punctuation than a comma needed here
  • Magna Carta's influence on English medieval law
  • 16th century
    • "than other contemporary texts" – potentially ambiguous (contemporary to the Tudors or the Plantagenets?) I'd make this "13th century", if that will work.
  • Glorious Revolution
    • "which "marked a setback for the course of English historiography."[180]" – if it's worth putting in quotes, it's worth attributing in the text
    • "he cited Magna Carta incessantly" – I'm sure he must have had occasional intervals for rest and refreshment – perhaps "continually"?
  • Use in the Thirteen Colonies and the United States
    • "When Englishmen left" – and Englishwomen, too. The men doubtless had all the political power, but you'd be safer with gender-neutral phrasing.
    • "the request was denied by the King" – you might say which king here
    • "Sellar and Yeatman published their parody on English history, 1066 and All That" – a parody? I am horrified: this has always been my main reference work for all matters of English history.
    • "In many literary representations of the medieval past, however, Magna Carta remained" – this, in passing, is one example of a "however" you could blitz: it wouldn't spoil the meaning and would improve the flow of your prose.
  • Celebration of the 800th anniversary
    • This section comes under the heading of WP:DATED. I'm sure you're going to keep it updated as 2015 progresses, but I'd be failing in my duty as a reviewer not to mention the point.
  • Physical design
    • "by jurist Sir William Blackstone" – you have generally refrained from using the false title in this article, and I recommend for the sake of good writing that you refrain here too: the addition of a definite article before "jurist" will remove the tabloidese flavour.
  • 1215 exemplifications
    • "great seal attached, albeit badly melted" – this the sixth "albeit", and it's rather outstaying its welcome by now. Once the reader starts to notice an unusual word it begins to be an irritant on repetition.
  • Several of them have been trimmed back.

Nothing of any great consequence there. Over to you for consideration. I look forward to completing the formalities once you've addressed these few points. Tim riley talk 20:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought (sorry about this): It's just occurred to me to run the duplicate link detecting tool, and there are some, not extravagantly numerous, that you might well weed out, viz: sheriff, Edward Coke, Glorious Revolution, Charles I, Lord Coke, James Holt, W L Warren, United States Constitution, William Blackstone and David Carpenter. Unless you have particular reasons for wanting a second link from any of these in the main text I'd blitz them. Again, I do not press the point at GA level. – Tim riley talk 13:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed some where they were fairly close together, but left a few (Edward Coke, William Blackstone and David Carpenter) where the links are several sections apart and I think it is useful for the reader to be able to follow the link for further context. Perhaps others have a thought on whether these should be removed as well?— Rod talk 14:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I think we're there. If you care to address my points about titles at the top of my comments well and good, but I have no doubt that the article in its present form meets the GA criteria handsomely. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

On to PR and FAC, please, and pray ping me at each stage. – Tim riley talk 19:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a helpful and comprehensive review. The article is better as a result and I will put a note on the talk page asking others what else they think is needed to move it forward.— Rod talk 19:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Magna_Carta/GA1&oldid=1136366777"