Wikipedia:Peer review/Royal Mint/archive1

Royal Mint

Having expanded the article a great deal, I wish to further develop the article to GA or possibly FA status. Any words of advice or tips are greatly appreciated. Thanks You. Tsange (Talk) 15:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment from Tim riley

I strongly advise you to ask for help from the Wikipedia Guild of Copy Editors. There is clearly good stuff in this article, but the prose is nowhere near GA, let alone FA standard. A few random examples of what I mean:

• "The original London mint from which the Royal Mint takes heritage" – "takes heritage" is a most peculiar phrase. I imagine you mean something like "…of which the Royal Mint is a successor"
• "...moving to the now named Royal Mint Court" – "moving to what is now called…" ?
• "While the mint warden was also responsible for witnessing the delivery of dies." – This is not a sentence.
• "...king Henry VIII" – The Manual of Style requires King Henry
• "ending all coin production outside of London being moved to the London mint" – I suppose this means "ending all coin production outside London and moving it to the London mint"
• "Due to Scotland's heavy debasement of their silver coins" – singular noun with plural pronoun. Scotland as a football team may be "they" but Scotland as a country is not.
• "which led trader to resume minting" – "traders" plural I imagine

I got as far as the Civil War before concluding that thorough copy-editing was needed. In addition, some other points from the sections I have read:

• "the mint has been in danger multiple times of being privatised" – this is a blatant WP:POV. Something more neutral such as "...there have frequently been plans to privatise..." is needed.
• "Kentish tribes ... nearby Marseille" – this would be the Marseille in the south of France, 700 miles away? Not "nearby" I'd say.
• "few local and episcopals" – I'm sure you know what this means, and I can make a guess of sorts, but "episcopals" should be either explained or linked to a suitable article.

I am sorry to be a wet blanket, but an article of such good content needs equally good prose, and I think the Guild is your best bet. – Tim riley talk 21:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Thank you for taking a look at the article and for your honest comments. I will ask for help from the Guild of Copy Editors, as you have suggested. Tsange (Talk) 16:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)