# Talk:Edward Gibbons

This review is transcluded from Talk:Edward Gibbons/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 11:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments

"and he later received degrees from the Cambridge University and Oxford University" perhaps you meant to say "from the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford".
Indeed! Done
"at King's College, Cambridge as " comma after Cam.
Done
"Clocke?. " don't need that double punc.
Done
"former is particularly moving" seems like someone's opinion.
Clarified
"1603 London plague outburst which " link.  And shouldn't it be "to which"?
"To which" seems better; linked to bubonic plague as I don't think a more specific article exists for that time
"more famous Orlando" is "more famous" needed?  Encyclopedic even?
Changed to "better-known", if that's better? I would say yes, since Edward is minor figure compared to Orlando
"c. 1540–1595" if it's only the 1540 which is circa, this should be c. 1540 – 1595.
I believe both are uncertain
Just checked, and your version makes more sense
If this is BritEng (with strong ties I would imagine that makes sense), baptised is with an s, not a z.  Check throughout.
Standardized, I believe
"from Cambridge University and" the University of Cambridge.
Done
Likewise for "the other place".
Done
"1591/1592" previously just used two digits on the second year in consecutive year range like this.  Check throughout.
Standardized
"couple would have six" had?
Done
"quarter shillings split" link specifically not to a generic article about "shilling".
linked to Shilling (British coin), instead
"notorious" puts some POV on it, any reason why "known" isn't more encyclopedic in tone?
Good point, changed to your suggestion
"are virtually unknown," by "virtually" do you mean "almost completely"?
Indeed, changed to "largely"
"characterizes" ENGVAR.
Fixed
"The works seem considerably routine, described" I would remove Wikipedia telling us how the works seem and stick with "The works are described..."
Clarified
Could we get row scopes in the table too, for the name of the work?
Good point, done now
Fix the last row (No other works...) so it doesn't sort, or remove it.
Fixed sorting
"194r-199v" en-dash.
Fixed
Harvard errors showing in the hidden categories, have you put a publication year for each use of the {{sfn}} template, for instance?
Indeed, seems to be a Rayner ref; fixed now
That's all I have for now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for this The Rambling Man. I believe I've addressed everything, but am happy to take another look should you find more issues. Aza24 (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)