Toolbox |
---|
![]() | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review with a view to taking it on to Featured Article status. I particularly want to seek an opinion on this series of edits made by the GA reviewer. The article copyeditor and others at Talk:Thomas Bailey Marquis#Discussion regarding style have criticised some of these changes on style grounds. An opinion on whether or not you agree that some of them should be rolled back or modified would be appreciated.
I would also like an opinion on this edit. It may well be correct that Weist obtained the information from family tradition, but the statement is entirely a surmise by the editor (this is self-admitted "I am guessing that the writer worked from family lore") and it does not seem proper to me to make this statement in the article.
Thanks, Spinning Spark 16:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
On the edits by the GA reviewer:
Many of the changes are unobjectionable, but a few are, to my mind, clearly worse. For instance:
Like those on the talk page, I also generally preferred the prose of the article before the changes: it is definitely dryer now than it was.
As for the change to the discussion of the derivation of the surname: if Weist reports it as fact and not family lore, it is not the place of wikipedia to either a) assert that it is family lore and not fact, or b) attribute that to a source which does not in fact say that.
Toolbox |
---|
![]() | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review with a view to taking it on to Featured Article status. I particularly want to seek an opinion on this series of edits made by the GA reviewer. The article copyeditor and others at Talk:Thomas Bailey Marquis#Discussion regarding style have criticised some of these changes on style grounds. An opinion on whether or not you agree that some of them should be rolled back or modified would be appreciated.
I would also like an opinion on this edit. It may well be correct that Weist obtained the information from family tradition, but the statement is entirely a surmise by the editor (this is self-admitted "I am guessing that the writer worked from family lore") and it does not seem proper to me to make this statement in the article.
Thanks, Spinning Spark 16:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
On the edits by the GA reviewer:
Many of the changes are unobjectionable, but a few are, to my mind, clearly worse. For instance:
Like those on the talk page, I also generally preferred the prose of the article before the changes: it is definitely dryer now than it was.
As for the change to the discussion of the derivation of the surname: if Weist reports it as fact and not family lore, it is not the place of wikipedia to either a) assert that it is family lore and not fact, or b) attribute that to a source which does not in fact say that.