Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Ancestry of the Godwins/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ancestry of the Godwins

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to take the article to FAC and I would like feedback on improvements needed. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dudley Miles (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.
  • Comprehensiveness:
    • I'd expect some mention of the ancestry of Godwin's wife, Gytha, if we're discussing the ancestry of the Godwins. If we're just discussing the ancestry of Godwin (which the title doesn't lead me to believe) then we don't need to mention her.
  • Other sources:
    • Walker Harold the Last Anglo-Saxon King has a chapter devoted to the ancestry of Harold - it includes some of the legends that grew up about how Godwin wed Gytha.
    • Rex Harold II The Doomed Saxon King also devotes a chapter to the family's ancestry.
    • Emma Mason's work The House of Godwine should also be consulted for completeness.
      • Yeah, sometimes it feels like all you do is buy more books to keep current with things...
  • Ordered.
  • Lead:
    • "and on his deathbed Edward designated Harold" ... still some ambiguity on whether or not Edward designated Harold willingly or not. Douglas William the Conqueror only is willing to go as far as "probably" and also allows that there may have been undue persuasion brought to bear on Edward at his deathbed. Bates William the Conqueror doesn't really go into it other than to state it was given to Harold by Edward. Huscroft Ruling England is also less than sure that Edward definitely nominated Harold. Huscroft in Norman Conquest is less definitive - noting that the sources aren't in total agreement.
  • Deleted.
    • "faced challenges from Scandinavia and France" - implies that it was the French king that challenged Harold - better to either go with "faced challenges from abroad" or "faced challenges from Norway and Normandy"...
    • Suggest "monopolising the English earldoms"
  • Done.
    • Much of the first paragraph is not in the body of the article and may be redundant in this article ... which should concentrate on the ancestry - not what Harold did.
  • Paragraph shortened.
    • Second paragraph - the link to Edward the Confessor is duplicate ... he's already linked in the first paragraph.
  • Removed.
  • Background:
    • Shouldn't it be "twelfth-century"?
  • Done.
    • It's not "Online Dictionary of National Biography" but "Oxford Dictionary of National Biography" ... and the usual abbreviation is ODNB. DNB is reserved for the old DNB, usually.
  • Done.
  • Aethelred theory: (sorry, can't be bothered to get the ligature).
    • "according to Ann Williams" I think you can just say "Williams" here since you've already given her full name.
  • Done.
    • Link "Norman Conquest" to the correct one (stupid DAB page...)
  • Done.
    • Something garbled here "record the fact that he was grandson's grandson of Æthelred I," ...
  • Corrected.
    • "In his 2002 book, The Godwins, Frank Barlow sympathetically..." Barlow was linked above, so it's not needed here.
  • Deleted.
    • The links to Compton and Alfred the Great are also duplicated here when they are linked earlier.
    • Deleted. (Forgot to run duplink)
  • Succession:
    • "there was no living ætheling in the strict sense of a king." not sure what the last part "in the strict sense of a king" means here.
  • Corrected
  • Done.
All in all, a nice little article. Definitely needs a bit more checking of sources to make sure you've covered other aspects, and I can't really say it's complete until Gytha is covered also. But getting there!
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.) 22:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

[edit]
  • "in the view of nineteenth-century historian William Hunt" – sorry to bleat on about false titles, but I really could do without this tabloidese phrasing. A definite article before "historian" will remove the pain. Likewise, later, for "historian Frank Barlow" "medieval historian Alfred Anscombe", "genealogist Lundie W. Barlow" and "Mayanist scholar and genealogist David H. Kelley". Fine in AmEng and The Sun, but not good English.
  • Ah. I have been reprimanded for this before by an editor who said it is OK in BrEng but not in AmEng. It is obviously just my illiteracy that leaving out "the" sounds right to me. Revised at popular demand.
  • "Oxford Dictionary of National Biography" – I'm with you in not italicising it, but I think we're in a minority, and I'd put it in italics before you go to FAC if I were you.
  • Done.
  • "Frank Barlow goes further" – perhaps omit his first name on this second mention?
  • "the confusion of the names Ælfmær and Æthelmær" – not quite happy with this: it reads as though the "confusion" is an established fact. May I suggest something on the lines of "According to Williams, the names Ælfmær and Æthelmær were mistakenly confused by writers after the Norman Conquest". Just a suggestion.
  • Tweaked.

This is a most pleasing article, and taught me much. After Ealdgyth's authoritative remarks my own inexpert comments are in the shade, but I hope they're of some use. Ping me when you get to FAC, please. Tim riley talk 00:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Ancestry_of_the_Godwins/archive1&oldid=1138559659"