Hermeneutic style edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to take it to FA and I would like feedback on getting it to that standard.
Thanks, Dudley Miles (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comments from Tim riley
- Definition
- "Adams, Lapidge and Reinhardt observe" – this is the first time we've met Adams and Reinhardt, and we've only met Lapidge in the lead so far, and though it's going to get a bit cluttered, what with this being a three-man book, I nevertheless think you need to introduce them however briefly: perhaps something on the lines of "In a 2005 study, J N Adams, Michael Lapidge and Tobias Reinhardt observe…" If you agree with me, you'll then want to remove the blue link to Lapidge in the following para. (As to the order in which to list the three, please see my comment under Sources, below.)
- Done - though with J. N. as the lazy leaving out the stops is one of the things which gets my goat, although I have no idea what MOS says. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- The MoS is with you all the way. I, being of the anti-full-stop persuasion, am regularly in breach of the MoS's pronouncement, but I have got away with it so far. Tim riley talk 22:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Shocking! I once had a secretary who left out full stops, and when I complained she said that I would have to put up with it because that was how she had been trained and she could not help it. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- The MoS is with you all the way. I, being of the anti-full-stop persuasion, am regularly in breach of the MoS's pronouncement, but I have got away with it so far. Tim riley talk 22:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Done - though with J. N. as the lazy leaving out the stops is one of the things which gets my goat, although I have no idea what MOS says. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- "Adams, Lapidge and Reinhardt observe" – this is the first time we've met Adams and Reinhardt, and we've only met Lapidge in the lead so far, and though it's going to get a bit cluttered, what with this being a three-man book, I nevertheless think you need to introduce them however briefly: perhaps something on the lines of "In a 2005 study, J N Adams, Michael Lapidge and Tobias Reinhardt observe…" If you agree with me, you'll then want to remove the blue link to Lapidge in the following para. (As to the order in which to list the three, please see my comment under Sources, below.)
- Early development
- Hincmar of Rheims block quote: I don't know if the source uses hyphens as parenthetic dashes, but the MoS tells us that we can, and should, silently Wikify such minor matters of punctuation, and you can with a clear conscience substitute spaced en-dashes for the four hyphens. (I'd have done it myself, but I thought it worth mentioning the point here.) The same applies for Dunstan's prayer later.
- So I have had to admit defeat. All this time I managed to avoid learning how to do an en-dash. I still do not understand the point as it looks just the same as a hyphen to me. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Hincmar of Rheims block quote: I don't know if the source uses hyphens as parenthetic dashes, but the MoS tells us that we can, and should, silently Wikify such minor matters of punctuation, and you can with a clear conscience substitute spaced en-dashes for the four hyphens. (I'd have done it myself, but I thought it worth mentioning the point here.) The same applies for Dunstan's prayer later.
- England
- "On the continent, some writers" but later "scholars he brought in from the Continent" – I'm not sure whether it's better to capitalise "continent" or not but it would be as well to be consistent. Later: I think perhaps capitalising is more usual and possibly clearer.
- All capitalised, including Continental. According to the Oxford online dictionary both lower case and capitalising are correct. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- "menancholy" – a typo I imagine, but I didn't dare presume.
- Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Dunstan's poem – I think I'd follow the usual convention of square rather than round brackets for explanatory insertions.
- Not sure about this. Is it the sort of thing where I should change the source? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Angelika Lotz quote – closing quotes missing.
- Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- "On the continent, some writers" but later "scholars he brought in from the Continent" – I'm not sure whether it's better to capitalise "continent" or not but it would be as well to be consistent. Later: I think perhaps capitalising is more usual and possibly clearer.
- Sources
- Aspects of the Language of Latin Prose – it looks odd to me to have the three authors in alpha order and then in reverse alpha order on the same line. I think I understand the logic, but if it was me I'd stick to the order on the title page of the book, which WorldCat tells me is the reverse alpha one. Quite understand though if you think this is too high-handed, and prefer to go nap on the existing wording.
- This is the way it is shown in the book, with Reinhardt the lead editor of the book and Adams the lead author of the chapter. It struck me as a bit odd at the time, but I assume it is deliberate and I think we have to go with the way they show it. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- If we're being hyper-picky, we are (WP:ISBN) recommended to use 13-digit ISBNs, with hyphens. There is a handy gadget here, that will convert 10-digit versions to 13.
- OK. I just saw for the first time ever a reviewer complain (at FLC) about inconsistent isbns. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Aspects of the Language of Latin Prose – it looks odd to me to have the three authors in alpha order and then in reverse alpha order on the same line. I think I understand the logic, but if it was me I'd stick to the order on the title page of the book, which WorldCat tells me is the reverse alpha one. Quite understand though if you think this is too high-handed, and prefer to go nap on the existing wording.
I enjoyed this article; you have a way of transporting your reader back through the centuries that I find beguiling. I can't find anything else to comment on, and look forward to seeing this at FAC, when please ping me. – Tim riley talk 16:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Many thanks Tim for the kind words and the review - very helpful as always. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)