Wikipedia:Peer review/Joan of Arc/archive1

This article was the subject of a previous peer review in March of this year. Since then it has undergone major changes. I joined Wikipedia earlier this fall and used the peer review feedback. User:Switisweti and I hope this has achieved featured article standards.

To summarize:

The introduction has been expanded per previous feedback.
The entire article has been rewritten for NPOV and narrative flow.
Context and Legacy sections summarize the political background and her historical impact.
Previously the Joan of Arc article had no citations or bibliography. It now has 18 footnotes and a selected bibliography with ISBN numbers.
Several images have been added from the French and German Wikipedia. Placement on the page is relevant to the text and includes informative captions.
Syntax, accuracy, and internal links have received attention. This has resulted in improvements to several linked articles. For instance, a feature length biography of Pierre Cauchon translated from the French Wikipedia now takes the place of a former two line stub.
The Joan of Arc lists now form their own page at Joan of Arc in art. That material has grown substantially, mostly with translations I made from the French Wikipedia regarding operas, painting, and sculpture.

To be candid, the editors remain less than harmonious. We are in the latter stages of moderation. There have been sock puppets and one editor has resorted to variable AOL IP addresses. Page protection may become necessary.

Pending stabilization, we hope this is something Wikipedia can present on the main page. We invite feedback from other Wikipedians. Durova 21:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the previous peer review that posted automatically. It did not seem appropriate for me to delete it. Durova 03:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is well on its way to becoming a FA. Here are some comments to consider:
- The structure is decent. However, I recommend re-naming "Context" to something more standard like "Background" or someting more specific like "Royal Succession". If "Biography" is going to be used with sub-headings dividing the timeline then give us a little intro, like how the intro to the article summarizes the article - but less specific and more theme-based (ie. unifying factors of her life, differences from normal 15th C. girls, life-long values, etc.).
- The "Historical evidence" section is pretty weak considering she is the most studied "figure of the European middle ages."
- The article says there are surviving documents with her signature. Her signature would make a great image for the article.
- I would like to see a "Suggested Readings" or "Further Readings" section since she has been written about so much. This section could state the most authoritative, or best, or most recent books/studies. Also, studies about different aspects of her life.
- I expected a lot more references. Here is a brief list of what should have some kind of reference:
  - "Major writers and composers who created works about her include Shakespeare, Voltaire, Schiller, Verdi, Tchaikovski, Twain, Shaw, and Brecht. Depictions of her continue in film, television, and song." (many references needed)
  - "The extent of her military leadership is a subject of historical debate."
  - "Traditional analysis cites her..."
  - "Recent scholarship that focuses ..."
  - "Most historians blame French grand chamberlain..."
  - "Many historians condemn Charles VII..."
  - "Her response was not only perfect but poetic." (whose opinion is this? cite at least one.)

--maclean25 19:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your comments are addressed in two branch articles: Joan of Arc bibliography and Joan of Arc in art. These are the first two entries within the internal links section. Perhaps that isn't prominent enough? Durova 17:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the Joan of Arc bibliography link. Might be best to create a reference section (with all the sources used to create this article) or a "References and notes" section and put that as a For further reading see Joan of Arc bibliography. I saw the link to Joan of Arc in art but didn't pay any attention to it since I was focused on this article (don't want the reader getting distracted by another article before finishing the main one). Perhaps put a footnote from "Major writers and composers who created works..." that says "see Joan of Arc in art" or a summary style section concerning that subject. The "Historical evidence" stub-section should either be significantly expanded or omitted (its not exactly the equal of "Legacy" or "Biography"). It is the weakest part of the article in that it says there is a lot to say about her, but then the doesn't say anything. Either tell the reader what there is to say (how this evidence was interpreted, how she her image has changed, interpretations, controversies, theories) or don't bring it up. --maclean25 19:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the editorial choices have been dictated by space constraints. Had added a Wikilink regarding the artistic references. Changing to a footnote. Will add another Wikilink to the bibliography at the footnote section per your suggestion. Thinking of ways to improve the historical evidence section. Most of your suggestions regarding it are addressed elsewhere in the article. The point of the section is to demonstrate that (unlike other national leaders such as William Wallace), abundant historical evidence does survive regarding Joan of Arc. Some of the uncited statements are hard to reference appropriately. Must an encyclopedia attribute an opinion when dozens (perhaps hundreds) of scholars have published the same view? Thank you very much for the feedback. Durova 22:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One difference between an encyclopedia article and a Wikipedia article is the references (per WP:CITE and Wikipedia:Verifiability). An encyclopedia is fact-checked and stable, wikipedia is rarely fact-checked and not stable. Wikipedia needs as many (easily-checked) references as possible to become a legitimite source of info. However, many of the claims listed above can just be re-worded so that it is not citing the opinion of someone else. Its really all about appearences. Make the reader believe what the article is saying is correct and intelligent. For a good example of using references and footnotes see Hugo Chávez#Notes (a very controversial subject with easily verified notes). I'd expect even more from the most studied "figure of the European middle ages." --maclean25 06:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]