Wikipedia:Peer review/King Arthur/archive2

King Arthur

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

This article has just been expanded using several sources and the editors are wondering where to go next to get to FA status.

Thanks, Wrad (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the article for the first time, and I am impressed. I will start with a couple of trivial points that I couldn't fix myself.

In Historicity: In the first paragraph, what is "the Badon"? Presumably something to do with Battle of Mons Badonicus (Badon redirects there.) There is also a similar unexplained use of "Badon" in the third paragraph, after the battle has been mentioned again.

I have made each mention of this battle clear. qp10qp (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Name: "… recent studies suggests" sounds slightly wrong to my (German) ears. Is singular use of "studies" standard?

Changed. qp10qp (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Pre-Galfridian traditions, last paragraph: 1) The word "euhemerize" seems to be a bit on the obscure side. Perhaps it should be explained or linked. I am also surprised that the article says "an euhemerized"; I would have thought it starts with a consonant. 2) I can't make sense of the "probably 12th or 12th century medieval biographies".

I’ve cut the first as superfluous. I have changed the second to “medieval biographies written around the 12th century”.qp10qp (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Tennyson and the revival: "So too were the artists" can be irritating because of the silly question whether this includes the parenthetical remark. Perhaps this can be smoothed out.

Done. qp10qp (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At times I found the density of Welsh words distressing, because I have no idea how to pronounce them. I checked that Welsh (language) isn't even linked, although that alone probably wouldn't really solve the problem. Perhaps there is no solution.

But most importantly, this article is way too long. I am not an expert, but I have read some little bits of the Arthurian literature, some of them in Old French and Middle English, so I could be expected to have some patience. Yet because of the sheer mass of detail I had to force myself to keep reading. I think this article would be much better if it was reduced to about half its present size. It would be a shame to lose the details altogether, but the topic is so important that a couple more sub-articles shouldn't hurt. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps many of the details could go to Arthurian legend. King Arthur and Arthurian legend could each have a section that summarises the other and presents the other as "main article" for the section. In this way it should be possible to tell two stories that support each other. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ideas. Wrad (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed parts of the article in Excalibur and in two new articles: King Arthur's messianic return and King Arthur's family. This reduces the article from 105kb to 79kb. The new figure still includes copious notes and references, so the proportionate reduction in the readable text is greater, and I believe the article is now a realistic size for FAC. qp10qp (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Geometry guy in a level 4 heading :-)

The lead

If I were reviewing this for FAC/FAR/FARC or GAR, I'd read the body of the text first and then the lead. However, for peer review, I decided to read the lead first and add some initial comments without reading the rest of the article. So beware that I might raise completely different kinds of WP:LEAD issues after having read the rest. In praise of the lead, it is conveys a lot of information to the reader in an ideal format of three medium-sized (easy to digest) paragraphs. But I guess you don't want to hear the praise, but the criticism and constructive (I hope) suggestions! And there's a lot that I don't like! However, please remember that this is peer review and many of my suggestions will be wrong. Please don't automatically fix every issue I raise.

General comments. You'd be able to say a lot more in the same number of words if you didn't use so many adjectives: fabled, prominent, considerable, international, fierce, scarce, scattered, legendary, comprehensive, key, modern (2nd time), associated, numerous, magical, pivotal. Some of these adjectives are needed, but not all of them. There are also other redundant words and phrases, which I will detail below, but I suggest also reading this advice on eliminating redundancy.

The lead should be written in an encyclopedic tone, and one of my rules of thumb is "show, don't tell"; adjectives tend to tell rather than show. This is related to neutral point of view. Now I am sure that the article has a neutral point of view, but try to imagine a reader coming to the article with the reasonable attitude "there has to be some historical truth behind the legend". They would be discouraged from reading the article, and hence learning more about the historical evidence and debate, by the very first paragraph. This first paragraph is also bad style from another point of view: it starts to deconstruct the position that the legend might have been based on (an) historical figure(s) without actually presenting (constructing) that position first.

First sentence. This is supposed to define the subject of the article. It doesn't do this very well.

It is too long.
"...fabled British leader..." with a link to Great Britain is misleading and confusing: Great Britain is a nation that was constructed much later; Arthur was supposed to be a Briton, i.e., from the Celtic culture which is mostly represented in Wales and the southwest.
It is redundant: you don't need to say both "fabled" and "legendary" in the same sentence. Perhaps "prominent" is redundant too.
What does "many" mean here. Is there some reference point?
"...mantle of rulership..." is very eloquent, but not encyclopedic.
"...withdrawal of Rome." This is confusing: Rome is a city as well as a nation. I suggest something like "after the Romans withdrew", but anything unambiguous and neutral point of view would work.

Rest of the lead. I hope these issues help more generally.

"...very existence..." is an example of my general remark that the lead deconstructs a position without even making it. Has it yet been asserted that Arthur may have existed? The "very" may also be a redundant word.
Is the controversy really fierce? That is quite a strong word.
"...were circulating before he wrote." is very awkward and the reader has to do some work to find the antecedant for "he".
Wouldn't it be better to discuss the medieval literary tradition before the modern versions?
Is there justification in discussing operas and musicals without mentioning any films?
"...single historical Arthur...": I know what you are trying to say (that there may be none or multiple historical origins for the Arthur figure), but "single" just creates a momentary confusion with "unattached"!
The pop culture reference to 100 greatest Britons might make an amusing end to the lead (rather like the "...and finally" format of news shows): placing it in the middle seems to make it a deeper observation than it is.
The third paragraph has a lot of redundant words. Here's a shorter version of one phrase: "adventures of knights (such as Kay, Gawain, Lancelot, Percival and Galahad)".
The sentence containing "Arthurian cycle" is confusing. It seems to refer to the whole story of Arthur, yet it changes depending on the observer. Shades of quantum theory! I suggest simpler, more direct wording, such as "The main elements of the story of Arthur depend upon the source." That isn't a great sentence, but I hope it gives the idea.
The last sentence is almost empty. Most readers don't know that excaliber and the sword of the stone might not be the same thing. Camelot is surely linked to the round table, and I'm unconvinced by this sentence that the lady of the lake is pivotal. Show, don't tell, and try to work significant elements into the story.

Geometry guy 20:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Llywrch

Admission: I have contributed a lot of content to this article in its earlier versions, so I probably have some unexamined biased on this subject.

Stop citing that repulsive book by John Morris! Yes, he was a tenured professor of classical history: but his book The Age of Arthur is, in a few words, an unreliable source. This is not my informed opinion, but the opinion of at least two experts in the field, D.P. Kirby & J.E. Caerwyn Williams, who wrote an extensive & detailed review of this book in the scholarly periodical Studia Celtica (10 [1975-6], 454-486), from which I will quote:

Dr. Morris is undoubtedly a well-read man, and a very great deal of hard work must have gone into The Age of Arthur. ... Unfortunately, the authoritative tone of this volume conceals not a lack of knowledge as such but a seemingly total inability to construct a thesis which unfolds logically and by appropriate stages, together with an indifference to the views and conclusions of other scholars bordering on the absolute. It is a matter of deep regret that such an outwardly impressive piece of scholarship as The Age of Arthur should crumble upon inspection into a tangled tissue of fact and fantasy which is both misleading and misguided. It is also a matter of grave concern that this book is likely to be read widely and its conclusions disseminated at all levels. No scholarly satisfaction is to be derived from commenting unfavourably and at length on the labour of love of another historian, but this massive edifice needs so thoroughly dismantling that it is essential to treat, at least in passing, as many as possible (for even a more extended critique cannot cove every defective statement) of the errors and misconceptions with which it abounds.

If people want to use this book in this article, they need to study this critical review carefully & the relevant later secondary literature before doing so -- & see if anything can be rescued from this work without indulging in original research. However, I don't see that this can be done; better to remove all mentions of this work & write this article as if Morris' book was never written.

No need to go that far. I've removed some Morris material, and now there is only one passage about Morris: "These modern admissions of ignorance are a relatively recent trend; earlier generations of historians were less sceptical. Historian John Morris went so far as to make the putative reign of Arthur at the turn of the 5th century the organising principle of his history of sub-Roman Britain and Ireland, The Age of Arthur (1973). Even so, he found little to say of an historic Arthur. Partly in reaction to such theories, another school of thought emerged which argued that Arthur had no historical existence at all. Morris's Age of Arthur prompted Nowell Myres to write "no figure on the borderline of history and mythology has wasted more of the historian's time"." This clearly puts Morris in his place, and no facts are cited to Morris at all. But his book was written, and his ideas are part of the history of Arthur theory, weak though they may be. I have Morris's edition of Nennius and the Annales, which I find very useful. qp10qp (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The historical sources used for the existence of Arthur makes it sound as if the material is limited to only those two works; as the article Historical basis for King Arthur points out, although few in number there are a number of other sources of interest. However, both this section & the related article ignore any mention of a significant problem: Why don't the Anglo-Saxon sources mention Arthur? Some have used this problem to argue that Arthur, indeed, never existed; others have carefully studied the Anglo-Saxon sources, & pointed out that they are too lacunose to support a plausible argument from silence. But this problem must be mentioned & described.

I have strengthened the point that Anglo-Saxon sources do not mention Arthur; but I think the article does address the lack of sources that name Arthur specifically. The article argues the issues very well and does talk about all the sources, not just the obvious ones like Bede, Gildas, Nennius, and the Annales Cambriae: see the section on the "Pre-Galfridian" traditions. The article makes a distinction between historical and literary sources and deals with them separately; but I do not see that anything is left out. qp10qp (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly, there is no plot summary for the mythos of Arthur: to understand the point of the extensive analysis of the numerous elements of the story of King Arthur, one must first know who he is! The article does not need to provide the detailed plot summary that appears in the articles of many works of literature (for example, Gone with the Wind), but at most a single paragraph ought to do it (Miraculous birth -- victory in battle over the Saxons, most notably at Mons Badonicus -- the center of a network of other heros & mythical narratives -- his death at Camlann).

I rather disagree with this. The article charts the cumulative additions to the Arthur myth and so the “plot” emerges gradually and, I think, clearly. There can be no one plot summary because versions vary. qp10qp (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these brief notes help you. (I'd write more, but my time for Wikipedia has been greatly reduced in the last few months, & what time I can offer is stolen from the time I need to devote to my daughter.) BTW, If you have questions about sources for some of the facts & opinions for this article, I do have immediate access to a number of the important books, both primary & secondary sources. -- llywrch (talk) 05:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from user:qp10qp

Since the comments so far are not being addressed, perhaps because Hrothgar hasn't edited since April, I may try to address some myself, hopefully with the help of the FA team, who have this article on their list. With work, I'm confident it's a surefire FA.

The good news is that, in my opinion, this is a remarkable article. I spent some time today checking the information in Ashe, Barber, Alcock, and Pryor, and it all pans out admirably. I must congratulate Hrothgar for the patient research and thorough detail this article contains. It really is a treasure.

The bad news is that, in my opinion, the article is much too long (over 105 kb: it took me far too long too read) and badly needs cutting down.

With such a detailed treatment, it would be a shame to cut a detail here, a sentence there, because this would lead to imbalance of detail. I therefore propose that the two sections: "Aspects of the legend" (containing the subsections "Weapons", "Family", and "Messianic return") and "Cultural and political influence" be entirely placed on other pages. The information is actually very valuable, and a mention of the main points can be left on this page, but it seems to me to be so detailed and particular as to be "main article" material (by which I mean "related article" material). Some of the listiness of "Modern legend" might also be moved, and the section tightened up, perhaps as the destination for elements of the "Cultural and political influence" section. These changes would shorten the page without seriously weakening it as an encyclopedia article, in my opinion.

The references and bibliography are somewhat over-full, it seems to me, and more abbreviated listing would make the page less unwieldy.

There should be artist details on the picture captions, I suggest.

it served as the inspiration for T. S. Eliot's "The Waste Land". I find this surprising, since the poem had multiple influences. Maybe a little more is needed to prove this.

(Now, this is weird, I’m responding to my own queries!) As I thought, the references to Arthur in "The Waste Land" are slight, and Richard Barber deals with this point. I’ve modified the text, referencing Barber. qp10qp (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link in the notes to "King Arthur's Great Hall" is essentially an advert for a commercial attraction in Tintagel, which (I live a few miles away) is in my opinion a ripoff.

I’ve cut this. qp10qp (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several poems attributed to Taliesin, a poet said to have lived in the 6th century, also refer to Arthur, although these all probably date from between the 8th and 12th centuries. I found this opaque. Are they supposed to be copies or fabrications?

Similar incidents are described in the probably 12th or 12th century medieval biographies of Carannog, Padarn, and Eufflam. Confusing typo.

I traced Carannog and Padarn to the 12th century but couldn’t trace Eufflam; so I have changed this to “around the 12th century”. qp10qp (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Modern Mabinogion". What does "modern" mean here?

"Historicity" is a heavy title for a section. What about "Historical truth"?

I have changed this to "Historical truth".

I really have little to query in the information itself. The only noticeable omission that struck me is Henry III's round table, repainted by Henry VIII. Also perhaps a mention of the sword-making origin of the "sword in the stone" legend.

qp10qp (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reviews so far everyone! Wrad (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]