Wikipedia:Peer review/Edward VIII abdication crisis/archive1

Edward VIII abdication crisis

There has been some discussion on the article's talk page about peer review and some changes have been suggested, and some of those implemented, however the editors of the page (which include myself) now appear happy with the current composition as the page is stable. The opinion of objective outsiders is requested in order to strengthen the page. DrKiernan 13:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Article amended accordingly. DrKiernan 08:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AnonEMouse

Quite good, actually, but I'd broaden the focus slightly to give a bit more detail on the couple, and cite some of the obvious-seeming conclusions and similes.

the establishment - lower case
- Are you sure? The Oxford English Dictionary appears to prefer "the Establishment". DrKiernan 11:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - All right, at least lower case The.
    - Yes, done. DrKiernan 15:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the opposition - add comma
- Done. DrKiernan 13:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Historical precedents - add at least one citation to each paragraph, not about the facts, but that these were considered relevant precedents
- Hmmn, I still have to search for one for the Hanoverians. There's a mildly amusing line in Ziegler where Walter Monckton hides a biography of Mrs. Fitzherbert (George IV's mistress/"wife") that he found in Mrs. Simpson's room. But I'm not sure that's relevant. DrKiernan 13:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm. Would this do? [1]
    - That's a little too salacious for me! DrKiernan 15:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Argument opposing - again, cite each paragraph. These are possibly the definition of contentious facts that need citation.
- Each paragraph now has at least one citation. DrKiernan 13:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"when the duke later married" - give date. Important to see relationship to abdication date, speech date, etc. Probably also worth a few to words to say where they lived and how.
- Right. Included. DrKiernan 13:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Picture of Churchill seems unnecessary unless you explain how he was more important than he seems in the article - in what capacity was he acting when he polished the speech? Surely not as PM, which is what he was most famous for, and not as Naval leader, his other area of fame.
- He was invited to lunch the previous day and the King asked him to read through it. DrKiernan 13:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then the picture of Churchill seems unnecessary and more distracting than illuminating. It's a one-sentence off-hand mention of the man, there a dozen people mentioned multiple times in the article that don't get pictures. It's worth its ten words in the sentence, but hardly the "thousand" of the picture.
    - OK, removed. DrKiernan 15:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"to serve during the war/Hitler" - these 2 paras are important, but don't seem to belong in a subsection on his speech. Move, or make a new subsection for them.
- Created a new section. DrKiernan 13:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
# 4 Options considered, # 5 Legal manoeuvres, # 6 Abdication, # 7 One speech, two versions - that's a lot of sections. Can they be made subsections of one or two larger sections, perhaps?
- Removed one section heading. DrKiernan 13:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I think the new organization is better, thanks.
Modern parallel - again, cite a source saying this is a parallel. Yes, it's obvious, but it can't be hard to find sources saying it explicitly.
- Reference added. Thanks for comments! DrKiernan 13:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"neither George ... remarried after divorce" - if the second George didn't succeed in the divorce, shouldn't this be rewritten?
- Yes, indeed it should, and has been. DrKiernan 15:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LuciferMorgan

Change the "Popular culture" section into prose, instead of it being listy. LuciferMorgan 03:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Rumours circulated that there would be a "patriotic" citizen's intervention (a legal device to block the divorce), which worried Goddard, fearing such an intervention would be successful."

Cite please? Any information as to where they emanated from, and where they circulated? LuciferMorgan 03:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Whilst she authorised her solicitor to say that she was "willing to ... do anything to prevent the King from abdicating," the common perception was that the King had made up his mind to go, even if he could not marry Mrs. Simpson, a belief borne out by his ultimate actions."

Can you cite this common perception? Thanks. LuciferMorgan 03:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I've rewritten the above sections. DrKiernan 14:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cite every reason listed at the "Modern parallel" section. LuciferMorgan 03:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I have added a citation for each reason. Thanks for your comments! DrKiernan 14:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]