Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
update
Dana boomer (talk | contribs)
52,509 edits
→‎Kept status: Keeping one
Line 80: Line 80:


==Kept status==
==Kept status==

{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Scotland in the High Middle Ages/archive1}}


==Removed status==
==Removed status==

Revision as of 14:17, 5 April 2012

Pages are moved to sub-archives based on their nomination date, not closure date.

See the Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/archive for nominations under the previous FARC process.

Archives

Kept status

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Dana boomer 14:17, 5 April 2012 [1].

Scotland in the High Middle Ages

Review commentary

Notified Users: Deacon of Pndapetzim, and GermanJoe. No other editors have edited the article since 2009. Notified Projects: Middle Ages, Scotland, and Medieval Scotland.

Talk page notice was made in December 2010 and seconded in January 2011. Some minor work was performed in September 2011 yet the major issues remain.

  • 1a There is a narrative and essay-ish tone of writing throughout the article.
  • 1c The source quality appears fine. Throughout the article there are unreferenced paragraphs. The first section on "Historiography" appears to be original research based on the lack of supporting sources. Overall the citations in the article have not changed much since article promotion in 2006. Some of the citations are in the spirit of "see also" pointing towards other WP articles.
  • 2c Work needed here for missing page numbers and uniformity and the presence of some ibids.
  • 3 Will check upon photo cleanup.
  • Mos Work is needed with MOS:IMAGES in order to prevent crowding. Several photos and block quotes or boxes are crashing into each other and pinching text. Brad (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some issues. On sourcing, the are whole sections (e.g. Ecclesia Scoticana) without any references, and some where the only source is the reference for the quote (e.g. Geography). It feels resolvable with a bit of work. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a wiki-break due to some recent problems with reviewing, but some minor additional comments:
  • Agree with Brads analysis, i tried to tweak some of the most obvious "essay" parts in September, but a complete thorough recheck of the whole text is needed.
  • The article f.e. uses 12 times "perhaps"-statements, most of those should be completely removed. If an important fact is still in discussion, more background would need to be provided (why is the fact in question? who is the most prominent supporter? what are opposing views?...). Somewhat vague information can't be avoided completely in a history article, but should be trimmed down where possible.
  • The Christianity section is of course an important part of this period, but appears too detailed. Parts like the poem or the list of bishops would fit better in the specialized sub-article.
  • The value and relevance of the modern jousting image for overall Scottish military is debatable.
Despite the very good and interesting content, the article fails FA criteria with the current style, missing sources and MOS problems. GermanJoe (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Without samples, this is unacceptable for a FAR nomination:

*1a There is a narrative and essay-ish tone of writing throughout the article.

So, if someone can document what issues there are, and examine whether anyone is working here, that will inform decisions about whether to move this to the FARC phase. This nomination is two weeks old, and no one has done that work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick samples of unencyclopedic tone and other prose issues:

  • "G.W.S. Barrow, who has devoted his life to studying"
  • "there is nothing special about his reign"
  • "It was Máel Coluim III, not his father Donnchad, who did more to create the dynasty that ruled Scotland for the following two centuries, successfully compared to some. Part of the resource was the large number of children he had, perhaps as many as a dozen" - grammar, lacks clarity
  • "As long as one remembers the continuities, the period can also be regarded as one of great historical transformation"
  • "The MacWilliams appear to have rebelled for no less a reason than the Scottish throne itself"
  • "There is a lot of evidence that the native Scots favoured pastoralism, in that Gaelic lords were happier to give away more land"
  • "Cattle, pigs and cheeses were among the most produced foodstuffs,[41] but of course a vast range of foodstuffs were produced"

These in combination with the MOS and sourcing problems suggest that a move to FARC is appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image and prose issues should not be impossible to address. I have had a quick look at the sourcing issues and whilst I lack many of the sources themselves the problems don't seem as a difficult to address as I originally feared. I will start this at the weekend Insha'Allah. Of more concern to me is that the focus is very much on the development of the "Origins of the Kingdom of Alba" at the expense of other pertinent issues. To a degree this is editorial choice, but it might take quite a bit of work to incorporate some of the subject matter I think is missing. Ben MacDui 08:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing page nos

I have now covered some of the sourcing issues. I am unfamiliar with the sourcing style and have not attempted to amend it, but if it needs attention this is essentially a mechanical task. Note to self: in the first half, Foster 96 and Stubbs & Howlett still need attention. Ben MacDui 12:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the page numbering issue has been addressed save for one ref to Foster 96 (#10) and Gillingham 2000 (#64) neither of which I have and nor do I have anything to hand as an alternative. The latter is part of a largely unreffed section which is going to need some other work anyway. Ben MacDui 16:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Peering beneath the clutter there is some inconsistency in the style of referencing so I am using a simpler method. It's less easy to see which source is being referred to, but much easier to see if the reference itself is in a consistent style. Ben MacDui 09:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially done. Ben MacDui 08:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image crowding

Done. Ben MacDui 16:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prose *"The Christianity section is of course an important part of this period, but appears too detailed. Parts like the poem or the list of bishops would fit better in the specialized sub-article".

Agreed and removed/fixed.
  • "G.W.S. Barrow, who has devoted his life to studying"
  • "there is nothing special about his reign"
Now working backwards through this. Ben MacDui 09:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the specifics mentioned above are dealt with but there may be others. Ben MacDui 12:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historiography

I doubt there was any genuine OR here but I have removed suggestions I can't confirm and added further information that is sourced. Ben MacDui 20:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Content

  • Military now fixed, but:
lacks anything about seapower
odd image problem Ben MacDui 18:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of references

  • Christianity and the Church & Geography sections plus odd sentences here and there.
This is now the main issue. There may be others but I think that (generally speaking) the content bases are covered and most of the other issues raised have been addressed. Unfortunately most of the missing information is not available to me and I will now seek assistance from those more knowledgeable. Ben MacDui 08:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Various requests for assistance sent out and offers of help now made. Ben MacDui 10:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If no one else has volunteered I will take a look at the geography section, which looks like it needs a bit of expansion and a lot of sourcing.--SabreBD (talk) 16:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do - I am hoping Billr will have a go at the Christianity section soon too. Ben MacDui 18:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the Xtianity section the following remain unreferenced:
  • Máel Coluim [III]'s raids and attempts to further the claims for his successors to the English kingdom prompted interference by the Norman rulers of England in the Scottish kingdom. He had married the sister of the native English claimant to the English throne, Edgar Ætheling, and had given most of his children by this marriage Anglo-Saxon royal names. In 1080, King William the Conqueror sent his son on an invasion of Scotland, and Máel Coluim submitted to the authority of the king, giving his oldest son Donnchad as a hostage. King Máel Coluim himself died in one of the raids, in 1093.
  • The conquest of the west, the creation of the Mormaerdom of Carrick in 1186 and the absorption of the Lordship of Galloway after the Galwegian revolt of Gille Ruadh in 1235 meant that the number and proportion of Gaelic speakers under the rule of the Scottish king actually increased, and perhaps even doubled, in the so-called Norman period. It was the Gaels and Gaelicised warriors of the new west, and the power they offered, that enabled King Robert I (himself a Gaelicised Scoto-Norman of Carrick) to emerge victorious during the Wars of Independence, which followed soon after the death of Alexander III.
  • In this period, little of Scotland was governed by the crown. Instead, most Scots lay under the intermediate control of Gaelic and increasingly after the twelfth century, French-speaking Mormaers/Earls and Lords.
although I think everything else is now covered. None of the above 3 items are vital in my view and could be removed or amended if need be. Ben MacDui 10:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If Billr is too busy to take a look at the Christianity section let me know, I think I should be able to fill in a few references, but it may be possible that a rewrite is needed here, which might be a more complex job.--SabreBD (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He has been away, but is now back and I pinged him on his talk page yesterday. I now have a copy of the relevant volume of Duncan's Scotland: The Making of the Kingdom so if he's not available we might be able to cover the bases between us. Ben MacDui 08:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine. Ping me if you need the help.--SabreBD (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bill's input is delayed so I have updated the Christianity section as best I can. Doubtless there is a great deal more that could be said but I think the most important bases are covered. It's a remarkable feature of this review that the additional edits it has provided to the article (so far) are about half the total that it took to get it to FA in the first place. Ben MacDui 14:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include references, prose and images. Dana boomer (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your enthusiasm Sandy - I hope it isn't misplaced. I think most of the issues raised above are now dealt with, and remaining unsourced material is now listed. There may be others of course. Ben MacDui 10:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Removed status

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive&oldid=485722720"