Talk:John Peckham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article John Peckham has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
April 10, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

GA review comments[edit]

  • Early life
    • This section would be better subdivided (too much varied information for a single paragraph). Suggest first break after "regent in theology". I'll deal with the second proposed break in a moment.
    • The term "regent in theology" needs explaining in the text for the benefit of readers without specialized knowledge, e.g. me
    • Suggest "Peckham also wrote..." rather than "He..."
    • Need sort out the question of Roger Bacon's influence. Here, and in the lead, you say he was "probably" influenced by Roger Bacon, without a source for this. You seem a bit more sure at the end of the section. Can we clarify the position?
It is sourced, I don't slap a citation on every sentence, citations at the end of a paragraph or group of sentences cover the sentences before (or they should, I will admit I'm not perfect). If you think I need it cited at the earlier, I can. It's straight from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
    • "..his pupil Roger Marston" rather than "Peckham's pupil".
    • End this sentence after Duns Scotus. Suggest paragraph break here, and start final sentence "He also studied...."
  • Reorganization section
    • "He was provided to the see..." What does that mean in layman's terms?
    • "English primacy" also needs explaining. I take it to refer to papal authority in England.
Actually, this was another remnant from the 1911 and I cut it since I can't find a good source for this. Folks seem to have backed off on him being a world changing figure in the English Church since 1911.
    • Redlink on "parliament of Westminster" doesn't help explain what this was, or its relationship to the blue-linked parliament later in the line.
At one point I planned to possibly create articles on all the various medieval parliaments, but right now, that's so far away it's not even funny. Delinked.
    • "...had to relent some..." - American English, I know, but isn't it still a bit informal?
Switched to compromise (which, given Peckham's personality, was probably forced (grins))
    • All this business about forbidding other archbishops to buy food is dealt with in rather awkward sentences, and I wonder how important this information is. You also have a clumsy link complete with pipe.
Cut it, because while I love the tidbit, it probably is trivia. But the ABC's and ABY's were always feuding over who was first etc. during the whole time from the Norman Conquest. It gives some great anecdotes!
    • in debt is two words, unless there is an American form?
My grammar is always suspect. Done.
  • Wales section
    • The second part of the section isn't about Wales.
Reorganised. Makes one section pretty small though.
    • It's a bit mean to hint that Peckham had some interesting views about the Welsh, and then simply refer to scholarly references. What were these views? I'd love to know.
Filled it in a bit more.
  • Ecclesiastical matters: "The famous quarrel..." suggests that this quarrel is so well-known as to need no further explanation. It's not known outside specialist circles. Can you reword, even if by just dropping "famous"?
I dropped the famous. The sources seem to think I should have heard of the quarrel, but I'll admit I haven't either. I suspect it's somewhere in a monograph or journal article I haven't found yet. Does this work?
  • Death and legacy: You have a number of opinion phrases here which must be cited, including "quaint and elaborate style", "an excellent maker of songs" (which is apparently a quote), "lyrical tenderness" and "typically Franciscan".
Leftovers that I missed from the 1911 Britannica article which was the start of this one. The dangers of staring at an article too long... I may have to cut these if I can't find references (and I"m not finding them in my stuff yet)
  • Works: You could blue-link Lambeth Palace without the Library.

Final word: I realise that there can't be many Peckham images around, but I'm not sure that the scientific drawing is the best lead image. Perhaps they'd be better the other way round? The cathedral picture does at least suggest an archbishop. Brianboulton (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that took care of the easy stuff. Going to work on all the rest in one big fell swoop. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I've read through it again and I think the changes improve it. I have picked up a few more quibbles:
    • There are 3 "influenced"s in successive lines near the end of Early life. Could the last of these become "guided"? ("...guided by Robert...")
Got rid of two of them!
    • Also in Early Life, I don't know what Ref [7] says, but would it still work if you placed it after "experimental science" and dropped the final short sentence, which is basically covered by the previous para.?
I moved things around a bit to avoid having a one sentence paragraph. Let me know if this works.
    • In Responsibilities, I'd say "He was provided, that is, appointed by....." rather than the "or appointed" bit. Also, parliament of Winchester feels to me as though it needs a capital P. Does it?
You're the Brit! I capitalised it, but keep in mind, we have a Congress, not a Parliament (which I always have to think about spelling)
    • Wales: "unchaste lives, conspicuous consumption, heavy drinking"? Sounds wonderful - what was he complaining about?
Franciscans, they never want you to have any fun!
    • Ecclesiastical matters should begin with Peckham, not He.
    • If you think the More problems with Edward section too small, could it not be merged with the Ecclesiastical section? The problems with Ed seem to be basically ecclesiastical anyway.
Moved it around. Now I wonder if the Ecclesiastical section is too big (mutters) Why couldn't he have been a normal bishop???
    • Death and legacy is a bit thin since you've stripped out the descriptive bits. I wonder if "Works" could be absorbed, since writings seem to be Peckham's chief legacy.
Put works in as a subheading of Death. Does that work?
    • On a point of curiosity, can you tell me how Google books referencing works? It wasn't immediately clear to me how I could check one of these, should I wish to?
Hm. I'm not sure what you want? If you click on the links in the notes, it should take you to the page on the book that gives the subject of the book and a short blurb, which should be enough to show that that was his work. I'm just using them as a source for the titles for some of his works, so I used a web cite template, and treated them like a web page. I meant it when I said I'm not into intellectual history, I own very little that would let me reference works by a particular theologian. Google books is a reliable source for the fact that a certain work existed, or at least i hope so. (Since they have some of my books listed I hope so!) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll leave you to swop the pictures round'

Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

GA review report[edit]

This is a comprehensive article with very thorough references. There are no apparent MoS violations and the links are working. It would be good to have more and better images, but little can be done when they are not available. No doubt, should future opportunities arise, the images can be enhanced.

Issues raised during the GA review were all settled satisfactorily. The article now passes all GA criteria, being clearly written, well-referenced, broad in coverage, neutral and stable.