Wikipedia:Peer review/Martin Bucer/archive1

Martin Bucer edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for March 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take this to FAC. I have tried cut down my wordiness, but help from others on the prose would be appreciated.

Thanks, RelHistBuff (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- "Nothing is known about Bucer’s mother..." to "...he was able to read and speak Latin fluently" is not covered by the third citation. I was about to insert a citation, but was unsure whether you wanted to do that or just change the page numbers for the third citation.

I changed the citation at the end of the paragraph. In one draft, the pages got attached to the first citation, but it is now rearranged. --RelHistBuff (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- "Nothing is known about Bucer’s mother except that her name was Eva." Well, not exactly true. :) We do know her death date and speculation about her occupation.

Greschat says she was a mid-wife by tradition, but then he argues against this speculation. She died before 1538 but this is only known because Bucer's father remarried that year. Even her name is qualified as "supposedly". I looked up two other sources (Eells and Selderhuis) and they do not even give her name. So I changed this to say that almost nothing is known and cited it. --RelHistBuff (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- "After a year of being a novice, he was consecrated as an acolyte..." Might want to do a check over the article to make sure that religious terms are linked (I assume novice has a special meaning here?).

Added a few wikilinks. --RelHistBuff (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- BuddingJournalist 04:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting and generally well done article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

There are several places in the article where more context for the reader could be provided. For example, there are no dates / years in the lead after his birth and death dates

I noted a couple of years in the lead and I thought about adding more. But most of the context is provided by his activities (Tetrapolitan Confession, Wittenberg Concord, Augsburg Interim) and adding more years here and there seemed somewhat gratuitous. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or in the Death and legacy section it should mention (repeat) that he was in Cambridge when he died - I had to click on the link for the church where was initially buried to make sure.

Added in lead and final section. --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice images, but per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.

Corrected the image without the thumb parameter (it wasn't my image, someone else put it in). --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also per the MOS text should not be sandwiched between images, but this is done with the portraits of Luther and Zwingli. I think this might be a good place to use {{double image}} for those two portraits.

I used a derivative picture of the two together. --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Language is generally good, but the article needs a copyedit to polish the prose. For example in the lead he/his/him is overused - Bucer's name does not appear in the lat paragraph there.
Or this sentence He took Archbishop Thomas Cranmer's invitation to come to England as Bucer had corresponded with several notable Englishmen and he believed that the Reformation had advanced quite successfully in that country. would perhaps flow more smoothly as He took Archbishop Thomas Cranmer's invitation to come to England as Bucer, who had corresponded with several notable Englishmen, believed that the Reformation had advanced quite successfully in that country.

Split into two clauses. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or this one - text is singular, but them is plural: On 3 June, the synod convened at the Church of the Penitent Magdalens, debated Bucer’s text, and accepted ~~them~~ [it] in full.[31]

Fixed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try to keep captions concise, could The steeple of the Church of the Penitent Magdalens seen behind timber-framed houses that were already standing when Bucer officiated in Strasbourg. be something like The Church of the Penitent Magdalens' steeple behind timber-framed houses, all standing when Bucer was in Strasbourg.

This was the image inserted by someone else. It isn't the greatest picture because only the steeple is seen, but I left it there because there wasn't a better option. I fixed the caption. --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colloquy is a disambiguation link, perhaps a link to Wiktionary: wikt:colloquy

There is a definition there and I was assuming that it will get expanded and eventually there will be a back link to another disambiguation page.

I have always seen the plural spelled "colloquies" not "colloquys"

Corrected. --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 10:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the comments. I know the prose is still a problem; I am working on it even now so that it is as decent as possible before I ask someone for a copy-edit. --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) Drop me a note on my talk page to remind me to do a full PR here, would you? Otherwise I'll likely forget. 13:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)