Wikipedia:Peer review/Anthony Roll/archive1
Anthony Roll[edit]
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
The update of this article came about during my work on the article on Mary Rose during the last six months. It grew from an auxiliary article to a self-sufficient minor topic of its own. I was very fortunate to get my hands on the 2000 edition of the roll, complete with pictures and essays on various aspects of it. All of the illustrations are available at Commons and the text is also available at Wikisource (though not entirely proofread yet).
My aim is to nominate the article for promotion, though I'm not sure whether to choose GA or FA quite yet. I'm looking forward to your advice and comments.
Peter Isotalo 20:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I think this would pass WP:GAN as written (doubtless with a few tweaks) and is an excellent candidate for WP:FAC. I have to say I looked at it to see if I would review it here and was drawn into the article and read the whole thing in a sitting. Now here are some suggestions for improvement.
- I am not sure Anthony Anthony needs to be in bold in the lead, as usually bold is reserved for alternate names of the subject of the article (and he is the roll's creator, but not the roll) - see WP:ITALIC and WP:LEAD
- Looking at the edit history, I see this was done to help with the redirect from "Anthony Anthony". I have edited that redirect to point to [[Anthony Roll#Author and artist - perhaps the bold could be moved to that section too?
- I agree. It's a better solution, particularly with the new redirect.
- Could some rough inidciation of time for William IV's gift of the second roll to his daughter be given in the lead - has to be between her birth and his death dates, even if it is otherwise unknown. My guess is early 1800s would work.
Done
- I would also link his daughter Mary Fox in the article William IV had given it to his daughter Mary FitzClarance, one of his illegitimate children by the courtesan Dorothea Jordan. as William IV is linked there a second time (after the lead)
- Done
- Direct quotations in the lead need a ref per WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:LEAD - ...the artistic value of the Anthony Roll has been described as being characterised by "naive draughtsmanship and conformity to a pattern" thought its artistic aspects display "a decent amateur grasp of form and colour".
- Done
- Although not required for GAN, for FAC this will need alt text for the images - see WP:ALT
- Suggested addition After the rolls were presented to the king they were archived in the royal collections and [two of them were] given by Charles II to Samuel Pepys, former secretary at the admiralty, in 1680. might also read better in active voice at the end (and Charles II gave two of them to Samuel Pepys...)
- Done
- Confusing - Pepys is introduced as a former secretary, then we read he resigned. Which office had he resigned? Pepys had resigned that same year and refused to recognize the reign of William and Mary,...
- I would wikilink forecastle, may be some other nautical terms that could a link too
- Needs a ref Along the railing of all ships, most prominently on the large carracks and the Galley Subtle, there are rows of banners displaying various heraldic designs, including the English royal arms, one or three fleur-de-lis of the French arms, Saint George's crosses and Henry VIII's monogram ("HR") in gold on blue, what appears to be the Tudor rose, and the green and white of the House of Tudor.
- Done (Just joined it with the paragraph below, really.)
- When I first read this I noticed a few places where I thought a word was missing or a tweak was needed. I see there have been no edits since, but do not see them now a second reading. Sorry.
- I'm sure it still needs some tweaks. I'll print it out and run through it properly before I put I nominate it for article promotion. Peter Isotalo 14:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Michael Devore is very good at finding typos if he is available. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)