Wikipedia:Peer review/Mandell Creighton/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion is closed. |
This article has a long history. Its main author, Fowler&fowler, has invited me to revise it, and, with his approval, I am now putting it up for a second peer review (the first was in 2011) with FAC in mind. I was unsure whether to list this under Religion and philosophy or Arts, as Mandell Creighton was an outstanding Bishop of London until his early death and also a leading and innovative historian. Comments are cordially invited on style, balance, prose, citations and anything else. Tim riley talk 14:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Ssilvers comments
[edit]I was asked by Tim riley to look over this article. The WP:LEAD does not give an adequate overview of the content of the article. It says nothing about his early life, is vague in places and contains general statements that are tangential to Creighton and could be stated (as I tried to do) with more direct relevance to him, like "around the time that history was emerging as an independent academic discipline in England." I made some preliminary edits to the Lead but user:Fowler&fowler reverted them wholesale without discussion. I also made some minor edits to streamline notes in the next section, which were also reverted without comment by the same user. I am unwatching the article and this page, and I wish you good luck, but I think there is a lot of work to do on this article to bring it up to FA quality. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Ssilvers: I don't know who you are, so I have nothing against you. I do understand that the lead should be a balanced summary of the article, which the lead was not. All I had suggested was that you are better off making the suggestions here (i.e in the peer review section) and allowing Tim riley to transmute them into his diction. Otherwise, there is too much back and forth, and the article can begin to sound a bit like what Virginia Woolf had said about Captain Marryat's books, i.e. contain springy prose. But it is not a big deal. I have now reverted the article to your last edit. Please accept my heartfelt apology. Apologies also to @Tim riley:. I will now butt out for the duration of the review. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for reverting, which I did not notice until just now. I am sure that Tim is capable of editing the language of the Lead to effectuate his "diction" and the further suggestions about the section that I had sent him off-line. I'll leave you two to it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)