- Previous peer review
This peer review discussion has been closed.
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]