Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Oliver Cromwell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Oliver Cromwell

Self-nomination - I have been doing a lot of work with this article and hopefully have improved, but am far too immersed in it now to be objective. My aim is to get it to GA status and then beyond. I would really value any comments. Greycap 20:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

Cromwell is a historical figure who always intrigued me, especially for the way he imposed his will on the people and the way he treated the royal tradition of England. But, anyway, this is not our subject here. I don't think you'll have any problems with GA. My remarks have mostly to do with a future attempt for FA status. These are my remarks for this nice article:

• I think you say twice in the lead that Cromwell was regarded by some scholars as a dictator. I think once is enough! For me this is a repetition. And be careful, because the lead is the mirror of your article.
• "He was a regicide who debated whether to accept the crown himself and decided not – though ironically he had more power than Charles I. He was a parliamentarian who ordered his soldiers to dissolve parliaments. He was devoted to Christian values yet his conquests of Scotland and Ireland were brutal. He advocated religious liberty of conscience but allowed blasphemers to be tortured. He advocated equitable justice but imprisoned those who criticized his raising taxation outside the agreement of Parliament." I also don't like the prose here. Many "he". Two "advocated" in a row. You say "He was a regicide" and a few words after "He was a parliamentarian". A better variety of expression would be welcomed. What about "As a parliamentarian he ... " or something else. If you are a native English speaker, you can definitely have better ideas than me!
• "Family" is stubby. Expand it or merge it with "Early Years" (I'd also suggest that for GAC).
• "He then studied at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, which was then a recently founded college with a strong puritan ethos". Again the prose! You see the "thens"? I'd suggest a copy-edit (not absolutely necessary for GAC; definitely necessary for FAC!).
• "At this stage, however, there is little evidence of Cromwell’s own religion. His letter in 1626 to Henry Downhall – an Arminian minister – suggests that before this point Cromwell had yet to be influenced by radical puritanism.[3] However, there is evidence ..." Again prose. I think these two "howevers" are too close one to the other. A better variety of expression is needed.
• Try to avoid red links as much as possible. If necessary, create stub-articles. And check if your red links are really red! For instance, although there is Portrait miniature you had a wrong and useless red link miniature portrait (I fixed that).
• "In May 1641, for example, it was Cromwell who put forward the second reading of the Annual Parliaments Bill, and who later took a role in drafting the Root and Branch Bill for the abolition of episcopacy". Citation needed.
• It'd be nice if you could tell us with 3-4 words or a short sentence what is the Long Parliament and not just wikilink us.
• Who is John Lilburne? Again the wikilink is not enough. Persons and institutions come and go, but you don't explain us what they are exactly.
• "Irish Campaign: 1649-50" needs more citations.
• Last paragraph in "Politics: 1647-1649" is uncited.
• "One of his major victories in Ireland was diplomatic rather than military - persuading, with the help of Roger Boyle, 1st Earl of Orrery - the Protestant Royalist troops in Cork to change sides and fight with the Parliament." Is this phrase OK? Especially the use of dashes. I'm not sure if the syntax is Ok here and that is why I'm asking!
• The first paragraph of "Debate over Cromwell's actions in Ireland" is full of assessments but has no citations. Don't have such assessments uncited! And, at least, try to have one citation for ech sentence (have in mind this rule for GAC).
• "Scottish Campaign: 1650-1651" also needs more citations.
• Don't wikilink more than once. For instance, Presbyterianism.
• "Death and posthumous execution" is also uncited.
• "Posthumous reputation" is excellent. Very nicely researched! Nevertheless, personally I'd create two seperate sections: one with the assessments and one with the films, songs etc. (last two paragraphs of the current section). But I suppose this is up to you!
• Just a question: You have a "References" section. Is this really a "References" section? What do I mean? I see in Footnotes more ISBNS. So, I wonder have you used the books from "References" in "Footnotes" or the "References" section is really a "Further Reading" section? There are three ways to have references: 1) In just one section (Notes or Footnotes), 2) In two sections (Footnotes and References [citations in Notes are analysed in detail with ISBNs etc. in References]), 3) In three sections (Citations, Notes [here we have a division of the previous Footnotes or Notes section] and References). Pick the form you prefer, check the current References section and rename it or create a "Further Reading" section if you feel that you need it.
• Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.--Yannismarou 16:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)