Wikipedia:Peer review/Sutton Hoo/archive1

Sutton Hoo

Request review before submitting to FAC. -- Stbalbach 18:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch

Some initial brief comments first, more later. The article seems very detailed and the overall flow is good. Obviously a lot of work has gone into this. Pictures are nice and well placed. The headings need to have the title "Sutton Hoo" removed per the WP:MOS. So the first heading "Sutton Hoo" could be "Site", the second "Discovery of Sutton Hoo: a modern legend" could be "Discovery: a modern legend" or even just "Discovery", etc. Some of the sections are very long and detailed and you may need to put them into their own separate article and leave a shorter summary in this main article (use summary style).

The article contains statements without references that need citation. Some of them use weasel words (italicized in quotes that follow) and seem to be WP:NPOV without references (and perhaps might be challenged even with citations, i.e. they may need other POV statements to balance them). For example, in "Discovery" one reads "Sutton Hoo is felt by many to be a magical place, and the legend surrounding its discovery and excavation adds to its allure and mysterious atmosphere." (be specific, say who feels this way, not just "many") or "By popular account she had a vivid dream of the funeral procession and treasures." (cite which popular account).

More later, hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 22:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The organization / chronology is very odd and needs a better thread / connection - first there is a description of the location, then the story of the discovery in the 1930s (called a modern legend throughout, which seems very NPOV), then a section on the surroundings which runs from the Romans to 1974 and has lots of unreferenced claims. Then we move to the contents of the cemetery, which are related in the following mound number order: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 18, 17, 2, 1. Next we have a huge section on Mound 1 (the ship burial) which could be its own subarticle. The following sections are on a new grave field excavated in 2000, then a discussion of Bede (ca. 600 AD), then Beowulf, then Art History and finally exhibitions. This has a lot of work before it is ready for FA. Also be consistent on style througout - one example: is it "Mr. Smith" or "Smith"? Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 18:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]