Wikipedia:Peer review/Oriel College/archive1

Oriel College

I have been working on this article for some time and would like to see it reach FA status, any comments to help it reach that goal are welcomed. Except changing the picture of the Rhodes Building and providing a photo of the three medieval pieces of plate, I have run out of inspiration as to how to improve it. Thanks. --Alf ^melmac 16:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lead could do with being longer (at the moment it seems to be almost all bold text), and I'm not sure commonly called should be bold. La ï ka 16:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely accept the comment about having too much bold and needing a longer intro, I have checked the ref, and though I don't have this year's copy of the Oxford University Calendar, I don't expect it's changed, word for word, the corporate designation is accurate, but I notice it just says "in full" so that can better addressed. I will look at the first three paras again and see how they can be recast to give a fuller lead and place that large amount of bold in a less impactive place. Thanks. --Alf ^melmac 17:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. The "commonly called" bit is actually part of the official name. Sorry about that. La ï ka 22:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've redone the lead and although I haven't entirely solved the amount of bold, putting the corporate designation into the notes is right in this instance I think.--Alf ^melmac 15:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 19:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll install and run that also. --Alf ^melmac 11:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I used SmallPotatoes for this and have cleared all but the 'relevant links' issues, I'm still ruminating over those, thanks. --Alf ^melmac 17:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balloonman

Here are my thoughts on the article, take them for what they are worth:

The article is in pretty good shape as is, but I didn't care too much for the introductory section. It was too much "The school was also known as" to capture my attention.

Valid point, I'll see about reducing that somehow on the intro re-write, the intro is certainly the area which needs most thought. --Alf ^melmac 11:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully addressed somewhat with the re-write of the lead.--Alf ^melmac 15:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

include a short statement on what Lollardy is. Links should be used to get additional information, but the article should be able to stand on its own to a certain degree.

Indeed, will do. --Alf ^melmac 11:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph with the Lollardy needs to be worked on. I read it and was thinking, "Huh, bloody battles? What's going on?"

Oh, I quite liked "bloody battles", but it obviously doesn't come across right, I'll look to that section again then. --Alf ^melmac 11:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the word bloody battles, but I'm suddenly hit with that term and wondering "When did the fighting begin?" It caught me off guard.Balloonman 17:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added to that section to prep readers for the bloody battles. Please tell me if I've missed the mark. --Alf ^melmac 17:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sections in the Student Life appear to be heavily paraphrased from Student Life

I must admit the student section is the one I've spent less time on than the rest, I looked across the rest of the college articles and borrowed what I thought best of the comments and tailored them to Oriel, ChristChurch's must have been better than the rest. I will ask some current students for their input on this to see if it can't be made more original. --Alf ^melmac 11:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got bored when you were talking about the buildings. You might want to condense that section... but then again, you might not.

My love of architectural history is probably to blame for that then, one the one hand I was tempted to start a sub article on the buildings so I could be fully encyclopedic about them and on the other unwilling to loose it away like I did the people, which I think did make it better, I guess those more interested in biographies than buildings would say that was the wrong way round :) I did find it a hard balance to cover adequately and remain concise, I'll look to asking a copy editor to see if the verbiage can be cut or sparkled as I am hesitant to cut the info. --Alf ^melmac 11:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very good article.Balloonman 08:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you comments are appreciated. --Alf ^melmac 11:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]