Wikipedia:Peer review/Thurstan/archive1

Thurstan

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 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 19:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 02:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good looking article. It is short, which isn't a problem in and of itself unless there is more information available about the guy. If there is the article should probably be expanded in order to meet the featured article criteria. I know that's not directly written in the criteria, but it's the generally understood meaning of comprehensive. As for making it accessible to the non-specialist, I would have to agree it currently isn't, but it wouldn't be too hard to make it more so. Basically the problem is that much of the context needed to understand the article is in the linked terms. That's ok for the bulk of that material on each term, but most of the terms should be at least defined in line so that they can be understood from the context of the sentence. Yes that makes it sound a tad redundant to the specialist, but Wikipedia articles aren't targeted to specialists. Some specific examples of terms that need some explaining are see of York, maybe consecration, suffragan, Cluniac, canon, prebend, etc. Of those the see needs the most explanation. It's an elected position, but of what level, what importance, etc. That and maybe suffragan is another idea that the reader seems to need an understanding of in order to understand the article, so that may need just a bit more than a quick definition, though perhaps not, I don't know. Also the second sentence of the Archbishop section is mangled, and what does resurrection mean in that context? - Taxman ^Talk 16:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]