Art History style errors?

bethwilliamson

I am pleased to see the Art History style here, but I've found a weird problem with it: a book reference or a journal article reference seems to be generally fine. But if I attempt to use a citation which is a section from an edited book, such as:

G. Constable, ‘From church history to religious culture: the study of medieval religious life and spirituality’, in Miri Rubin, ed., <I>European Religious Cultures: Essays offered to Christopher Brooke on the occasion of his eightieth birthday<I>, London, 2008, 3-16.

I actually get:
G. Constable, ‘From church history to religious culture: the study of medieval religious life and spirituality’, London, European Religious Cultures: Essays offered to Christopher Brooke on the occasion of his eightieth birthday, 2008, 3-16.

And there are a couple of additional issues with all the different forms of citation for Art History (at least the way I'm getting them):
There should be an 'n' rule between the numbers, not a hyphen
They use full names for authors, not initials

Am I doing something wrong, or has anyone any idea how this can be fixed?

Thanks for any help you can offer.

adamsmith

the style hasn't been touched for years - it seems like it's in pretty bad shape, if you can assemble a list of errors I can eventually fix it, but as opposed to MHRA this is actually substantive and will take some time.
I don't think you're doing anything wrong, though.

I don't think we can fix n vs. m dashes though.

bethwilliamson

My goodness - you're amazing! Thank you for offering to do this. I use Chicago and MHRA for many things, but Art History, as the main UK journal in the area, is a necessary one too. It isn't actually imminently necessary though, so I'd just be grateful if you can get to it whenever you are able.
Many thanks!
I'll have a look at it, and go through it carefully. I guess hyphens that should be 'n' rules can just be fixed at the end by a 'search-and-replace'.