Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Angevin Empire

Angevin Empire edit

I would like this article to be improved as much as it could, it has been suggested that with improvements it could be a candidate to be a featured article, since I'll have more time this week I can work on improvement with suggestion. As my first article it is unlikely that it goes that way though. Matthieu 12:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin edit

This is quite nice, but it still needs quite a bit of work to be ready for a smooth FAC:

The lead section should be a summary of the entire article, not an introduction to the topic (with information that appears nowhere else); the actual content should be moved to the body.
More detail on the historiography of the name would be appropriate, I think.
The headings should be formatted per the MoS; and should be kept as grammatically sensible as possible (e.g. "John's reign and the collapse" rather than "John's reign, the collapse"). "Angevin Empire" should be omitted as well.
More citations! Large portions of the article are entirely uncited; see the project guidelines for some ideas on this.
I'd replace {{cquote}} with regular blockquote formatting.
Thorough copyediting will be needed, as there are errors in grammar and word choice (e.g. "accessed the throne" for "ascended the throne", etc.) sprinkled throughout the article.
Most of the uses of {{seealso}} and {{main}} should really be {{details}}.
Bulleted lists should be converted to prose where possible.
The "See also" section should be eliminated by working the links into the body of the article.
A bibliography-style "References" section separate from the footnotes might be helpful.

Keep up the good work! Kirill Lokshin 18:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the introduction to a new section about the name and the way it is applied. As well contemporary views on the structure, it is therefore expanded, I frankly don't see what can be added on this specific topic now. There is a new (very brief) introduction too.

I may add a "further reading" section to complement the footnotes. I have also added some citations and notes, I'll do more as time goes on.

Sorry for the grammatical mistakes, well as I said English is not my first language. If there is an English language buff that wants to help he is welcome.

Matthieu 15:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the citations, if you could indicate me which points seem contestable or will attract controveries I will dig quotes, but I think there are a lot in the notes already. I tried to give more weight to the areas which would be contested (these relatives to the nature of power of the Angevin Empire, its structure and the political weight, as well as the hommages and things that would attract debates have been given notes). Matthieu 14:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much anything in particular (or, more precisely, I don't know enough about the topic to be able to give a good analysis of which points are controversial), but rather a general sense that a reader ought to be able to go to any point in the article and find a (reasonably close-by) citation for the statements there. There's no specific requirement for a certain density (see the project guideline); but having at least a citation for every paragraph is often a good rule of thumb. Kirill Lokshin 16:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have quoted everything that could raise questions or controversies really. From now I hardly something that can require more attention than the rest, but I'll keep watching Matthieu 23:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond edit

Just some additional things (apart from the grammar) that will need attention:

Misuse of the hyphen eg: But by October the new Count of Toulouse -Raymond VI- left the Capetian side. . .

Commas are fine, eg But by October the new Count of Toulouse, Raymond VI, left the Capetian side . . .

All citations must come ‘’after’’ the punctuation

Hasn’t, wasn’t etc, should be written – Has not, was not etc.

The map has misspelled the word Plantagenet

Not too bad, but as Kirill said, it will need a bit of close attention to the prose. Raymond Palmer 01:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the map is not of my fact :P but yeah it's annoying. Matthieu 22:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bukvoed edit

I'm genuinely impressed by the sheer amount of information.
Don't see major problems with formatting / citations etc.
But the language seems a bit awkward at times. At least that was my impression, perhaps a wrong one since I'm not native English speaker myself.
Also, the article is very long; this is not necessarily a bad thing, but perhaps some sections could be trimmed down ? Or may be even splitted to separate articles ? Again, not sure about it.
I'd like to see a separate section with a list of sources used.

Bukvoed 17:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]