Talk:Leges Henrici Primi/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Bencherlite^Talk 11:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments and questions

An interesting and informative read. Just a few points for you:

• I've carried out a light copy-edit; I won't be offended if you prefer your version of any of the phrases, however. Tempted as I was to remove all trace of Americanisms from the article, I hope I avoided making changes for the sake of making changes (e.g. leaving in "The work was likely composed at Winchester" hurts my Br-Eng ears, but that's the price I have to pay for editing an international encyclopaedia!)
  • Nothing looked off to me... looked fine in fact. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
• Should the manuscript sigla be in italics? (Disclosure: my wife works with medieval manuscripts and I end up proof-reading her publications, and I seem to remember that she puts the sigla in italics.)
  • I double checked with Downer's work on the Leges as well as a couple of other works on other manuscripts/works, and nothing was in italics. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Fine, it might just be a question of personal preference or a particular publisher's house style. Bencherlite^Talk 15:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
• Could the lead include a bit more about its importance e.g. the Wormald quotation and / or the fact that it was the first legal treatise in English legal history?
  • Expanded a hair. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
• I don't think you explicitly say (outside the infobox) that it's written in Latin, although given its title it may be obvious. But it meant that I was slightly puzzled when I read "certain legal terms used in the Leges, whether in their original English language or rendered into Latin", since I had to read it a couple of times to try to work out whether it was saying that the legal terms in the Leges were in English or in Latin.
  • DUH! Added and linked to medieval latin, as that's the form of the language. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
• I assume there's no useful image of the manuscript or an early edition. I had a quick Google hunt and found this image of the Wilkins edition, which could perhaps be cropped to show just the title page, although I can see that it's not the greatest of additions to the article, and lack of images isn't a reason to fail an article anyway, of course.
  • I think I'll steal that image for when I do (if ever) something on Wilkins' work, but for this, I think it's a bit peripheral. It was very odd that Downer didn't include a single image in his edition, but there you are. If the relationship between the manuscripts was more complex, I'd have put in a chart/figure on that, but ... they aren't. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree about the peripherality of the image, which is why I hadn't done anything with it myself. Bencherlite^Talk 15:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, I can't see any real problems with the article. Let me know your response to these points in due course and I'll probably be able to pass it v. quickly thereafter. Bencherlite^Talk 12:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review! I'm still undecided on it and FAC, I don't think there's that much more to expand the article with, and I really detest manuscripts/literature studies, so doing it up like Hemming's Cartulary is probably more than I can bear... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Fine. I'm happy that this meets the good article criteria, so I'm happy to pass it. Well done! Bencherlite^Talk 15:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)