Talk:William H. Prescott/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum 16:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are far too many low-value wikilinks in this article, such as death, eyesight, artificial eye, paralysis, biography, cowardice. Think about which links are likely to add value for the reader and get rid of the rest.

Done. Claritas § 22:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Early life

"Prescott suffered from failing eyesight after an in thrown crust of bread was temporarily lodged in his eye." What does "in thrown" mean?

"It was a problem that haunted him for the rest of his life, losing sight in one eye completely and in the other significantly, with the remaining eye suffering ups and downs, sometimes being inactive altogether for periods of time." This is very awkward, and not at all clear. What happens when an eye becomes "inactive"? What does "suffering ups and downs" mean? The opening to this sentence doesn't make sense: "It was a problem that haunted him for the rest of his life, losing sight ...". What's the subject of "losing"?

I've re-written and summarized these sentences, which came from the article circa 2005. Claritas § 16:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Early career—The History of Ferdinand and Isabella

" Prescott wrote a succinct reply to Da Ponte's argument, which filled some fifty pages, in the North American Review of July 1825". It's not clear which it was that filled those 50 pages; was it Da Ponte's argument or Prescott's reply? If the latter, then 50 pages can hardly be called "succinct". Claritas § 17:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was Da Ponte's argument. I'll clarify this.

"An odd aspect of the affair was that Da Ponte published the criticisms as an appendix to his translation of Dodley's Economy of Human life ...". In whose opinion was it "odd"?

Mine. Removed. Claritas § 17:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"His work was disturbed in February 1829 by the unexpected death of his eldest daughter Catherine, who was only four years old." This is the only mention of Prescott's children. How many did he have? What became of them?

Dates of birth and death are under Personal Life. The answer is that they have received very little coverage in the biographies of Prescott, and I can't find any sources which attest to anything else than their life spans. His eldest son went to Harvard according to Peck, but there's nothing else on him around. Claritas § 17:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll buy that. You might need to dig a little deeper if you're thinking of taking this to FAC though. Malleus Fatuorum 18:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Research on Philip II

"Prescott started writing the draft on 26 July." The first half of the article uses the American date format, but from this section onwards, it switches to the international format.

Which is preferable ? Claritas § 17:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Prescott was an American, probably the American format is a more natural choice, but whichever you pick the article needs to be consistent. Malleus Fatuorum 18:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Claritas § 22:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The principal archives of historical material were held in Simancas, but both Lembke (who had collected materials for the Conquest of Mexico) and Middleton were unable to gain access to them.[88] They further reported that the library was so disordered as to make productive research impossible." If they were unable to gain access, then how did they know that the library was so disordered? Were they unable to gain access because the library was so disorderly?

It's not exactly clear why, because Lembke and Middleton's letters to Prescott don't seem to have survived, and the three biographies which mention this (Ticknor, Peck and Gardiner) have relied on Prescott's correspondence to Ticknor et alia, which naturally does not contain precise references. What seems to have been the case was that Lembke and Middleton were initially denied access to the library unexplained, and then later informed that it wasn't worth the effort to make a request at a higher level because the library was in such a mess. Whether the two were connected is unclear. I've rewritten the sentences. Claritas § 22:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Conquest of Mexico

"The latter he studied from a 16th-century manuscript; it would not be published for another 20 years." Presumably it's the 16th-century manuscript that wasn't published for another 20 years? If so, it would be clearer to say "... which not published for another 20 years", although I'm not sure how the publication date of one of Prescott's sources is relevant.

I'll remove this - I agree it's irrelevant. Claritas § 17:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"John Lothrop Motley, who also planned to write such a work, was aided by Prescott, who gave him access to his collections of books and manuscripts on the topic." Rather awkward. Does this mean that Motley and Prescott collaborated? Was it their intention to publish separately or jointly?

Legacy

"... the work has not received more critical attention than other contemporary accounts of the monarch's life." I'm not at all sure what this is trying to say.

Prescott's Phillip II did not have the same impact on the field of research as his other works - its impact is comparable to, say Mignet's work on the subject. Claritas § 17:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

I'm not sure why all the author names are in upper case, but they should be so consistently. The final one, William H. Prescott, looks more like it ought to be in the External links section anyway, rather than the Bibliography. Same with Familysearch.org.

General encyclopedias like Britannica are not suitable sources for a wikipedia article.

Need to be consistent in presenting the authors in last name-first name format, both in the Bibliography and in the citations, such as #30 (Joseph Rossi) and #128 (David Levin).

I'm putting this review on hold for up to seven days to allow time for these issues to be addressed. Malleus Fatuorum 20:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've done all that's needed as per above. Claritas § 22:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this now just about creeps through the GA criteria, but don't even think of taking it to FAC without a lot more work. Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.