|
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hey everyone, I'm Nikkimaria and I'll be reviewing this article over the weekend. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll organize the review by GA criterion for simplicity.
Well-written and well-formatted[edit]
- Lead: I would suggest having Lord Protector link to Lord Protector#Cromwellian republic Commonwealth, as that is the section that is relevant here. First sentence of the second paragraph repeats the last sentence of the first paragraph - first sentence could be deleted and "museum owners" added to last sentence. Also, "Into the 18th century..." - do you mean "by" or "during"?
- Background: "surmounted above Westminster Hall" - do you mean mounted? Surmounted doesn't quite fit here. Also, with the theories about the "bodies", Mary could not have had "it" removed - if you want to include the other two here, do so, but otherwise make it singular all the way through.
- Surmounted seems fine in this context, but mounted works just as well. Other issues fixed.
- Journey: The sentence beginning "Even the position..." needs some revision for grammar. Should specify whether "he" refers to Russell or the Master in "he was not interested". Make sure to maintain either past or present tense, rather than switching back and forth.
- Fixed.
- That's better, but a couple more issues - first, "disputed" is now a repetitious sentence ending, and second, that the position "had been disputed" is unclear. Disputed by whom? Why? How?
- My fail. Turns out Pearson and Morant were disputing it themselves, and using evidence to prove the theory correct. Reworded to that effect.
- Authenticity: "the Wilkinson head was that of Cromwell's" doesn't make sense - should be either "was Cromwell's" or "was that of Cromwell". First sentence of second paragraph doesn't make sense as written - what is the meaning of "range" here? Should avoid the double "claim" in the sentence on Oldmixon, and does "the following night" refer to the night after his execution, disappearance, or death? Why is "brothers'" capitalized in "Hughes Brothers'" when it previously was lower-case?
- Fixed. Range was a typo; the forgotten beginning of a sentence drafted before the current one. Capitalisation is a typo.
- Good, but "the following night" is still bothering me. Also, "greatest victory" and "reliable Gentlewoman" should be cited.
- "20-foot spike" should be also shown in meters per MOS:CONVERSIONS. Also, monetary values should be also shown in modern currency where possible (most non-British readers won't have any concept of how much a guinea was worth, for example). It would be great to account for inflation too, but that may or may not be possible.
- Added {{convert}}; found a way to convert the old currencies and cite them. Unfortunately it is impossible for me to calculate the rate of inflation with the sources I have available.
- You got the 20-foot spike in "Background", but there's one in the lead too. Don't worry about the inflation, I thought that would be harder anyways.
Accurate and verifiable[edit]
I don't have ready access to any of the sources cited, so I can't verify whether they reflect the information in the article. However, the organization has a few issues. The short note-long reference style used here is allowed, but it should be consistent. Morril is fully cited in "notes", but nothing else is (except possibly Pepys); "Pearson and Morant" appears as "Morant and Pearson" in #12; Fitzgibbons is misspelled in #15; Howarth and Pepys are in Notes but not in References; Beales is in References but not in Notes. Other issues noted:
- Fixed. The only reason the website has been fully cited because it is necessary for the access date to be present. I have condensed it however.
- I believe Howarth and Prestwich are still missing from "References" - otherwise that's fine.
- The lead section needs many more references. Even if a fact is repeated and cited later in the article, it should still be cited here as well.
- That is not a requirement, as everything that is uncited is repeated and cited later on. Please see WP:LEADCITE; in particular, "..with the exception of quotations, such sourcing does not need to be within the lead section itself: since the lead should summarise the body, there should normally be somewhere in the body where sources for the information can be placed." There is nothing controversial in the lead that is uncited later on, and the quotes there are sourced.
- You are correct about facts; however, per the excerpt you have provided, "with the exception of citations". Therefore, the quotes in the lead still need to be cited.
- Gah, missed those. Silly me. Fixed.
- What does "personal rule" refer to in Background?
- Date of death should be referenced, as should the rumor about Mary
- Date of death referenced. The rumour is cited to the next reference; I didn't see a need to duplicate the references here.
- Theories and rumors about Russell should all be cited in "Journey".
- Same as above; the intermarriage theory is cited in the next reference along.
- "Considerable reward" should be cited
- Sentence break makes this unclear, so reference duplicated.
- Quote about Cox and "the identical head" should be cited, as should the "subtle means".
- As there is a sentence break, I have cited it again (it was part of the quote that continues in the next sentence, but this is unclear). Subtlety reworded.
- The 3rd and 4th sentences in the paragraph about the Hughes brothers should be cited
- Carlyle quotes should be cited
- Odd, I thought they were. Done.
- All rumors in the "Authenticity" section should have references
No issues noted.
Neutral[edit]
- Should remove "basic" from the description of the analysis in the lead
- Background: in whose opinion was England under Cromwell an "effective" republic?
- Bad phrasing. The Commonwealth of England was a republic, whether it was effective or not. Fixed.
- Journey: why do you say "even" the position was disputed?
- The phrase "no concrete evidence" suggests circumstantial or questionable evidence is available. If that is the case, this should be mentioned.
- Reworded, but as to what evidence is available, the source does not elaborate unfortunately.
- The museum "ranked among the top attractions in London" - according to who?
- Who says the rumors about the body are "unlikely legends"? That statement needs to be qualified, as it presents a definite POV.
- Reworded and sourced directly from the source.
- "If this story had any accuracy, the irony would be that the posthumous act was possibly carried out on an English monarch rather than Cromwell himself. Another story even suggested that Cromwell's body was substituted for Charles I, adding a further mockery to the situation" - the attribution likely suggests the body switch, but the rest is POV, and should be removed or qualified.
- Quoted from the source and cited.
- Does Fitzgibbons also support the "irony" mentioned in the first sentence? Based on the wording of your quote I would suspect it does, but it should be reworded to make this clear.
- He does. Reworded to that effect.
- May wish to make the information on the Ashmolean skull a subsection in "Authenticity", or have separate subsections for "body" and "head"
- I'm not sure this is wise. The Ashmolean skull is only mentioned in passing, and given that the majority of text is about the Cromwell skull, dividing it may cause more problems. I'm open to opinions though.
- You have definitely split "Authenticity" into "head" and "body" in prose, if not with headings. One could argue that the "head" part should be longer than the "body" part, as that is the subject of the article. Leaving it as one section would be fine, but I would argue for a more "head-centric" view in that section.
- Ah, yes, so I do. Split. The issue is that the the majority of the conspiracy theories surround the body, which I thought to be relevant to the article as much as the head. I can't find many more authenticity-related sentences related to the head specifically, sadly. Fitzgibbons is the most accurate account so far, so I have to assume that if they aren't in Fitzgibbons, they don't exist. But I'll certainly look out for them.
No issues noted.
No issues noted.
This article is well on its way to qualifying for GA status...it just needs some fixing-up in order to pass. I'm putting this article on hold to allow editors time to address my concerns. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the detailed review. The only query is some of the referencing and the lead citations, but I think I've fixed the majority of your comments. I'm open to discussion on the other points. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
