Talk:Shieling/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Xx78900 (talk · contribs) 19:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   There are definitely several places in this article where the prose and grammar could be improved.

   Noted.

1. Etymology

   "particularly those used by shepherds, and later..."

   Edited.

   "The word "shieling" comes from shiel..."

   Edited.

   Definitely the different languages in this section should be wikilinked (not relevant to GA review, just a note)

   Done.

1. Seasonal dwelling

   No need for transhumance to be wikilinked a second time.

   It is standard practice to link once in the lead and once in the body.

   Marginal land should be wikilinked

   Done.

   Remove the words "with names".

   Edited.

   "Some were constructed of turf and tended to..."

   Edited.

   "mediaeval" is not the common spelling of medieval in any contemporary national standard of English that I know of.

   Changed.

   "after the abandonment"...

   Added.

   Could do with clarifying what is meant by "modern" farms. Contemporary or Enlightenment era?

   Contemporary.

1. Memories in folksong, literature and poetry

   First of all, "Memories" is a highly unusual title for this section.

   Reworded.

   "which helps protect this word from obscurity", reads like an essay.

   Removed.

   The "covered on Uam by Jamie Fowlis" line is irrelevant.

   It's how many readers will know the song.

   remove the "is" immediately following above.

   No, it's the only verb in the clause.

   Is it necessary to call him the "Weaver poet"?

   It's how he's often known, and this may be helpful to readers.

   I'm not going to continue in this section as I believe most of it should be removed as it is not focused (see below).

   A "legacy" section is always going to contain items of various kinds with little or no relationship to each other, e.g. something might be remembered with a monument, a novel, and a song: this is the nature of "legacy". The fact that the song in such a case does not sing of the monument or the novel is not a fault.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

1. I have a big problem with the sourcing of this article. Source 15, to Julie Fowlis' website, doesn't confirm what is written in the article. #::Moreover, even if it said word for word what is written in the article, I don't think that a song lyric can "confirm" anything about what #::sexual experimentation may have taken place in these buildings.

   Removed the word "confirms", not big stuff.

   Source 27, which immediately precedes the article's footnote, does not confirm #::what is stated in the footnote.

   Removed the footnote.

1. In regards to original research, a quick google search indicates that Munro's book is fictional, and as real world information is being #::projected onto this story, this article currently fails the GA criteria on grounds of original research. If you can cite somebody else #::deriving that information from Munro's book then that's fine, but otherwise it has to go.

   With respect, that is missing a major point about fiction. If Shakespeare says in a play, a work of fiction, that a man thumbs his teeth as an insult, we may be sure that the gesture was indeed insulting, regardless of its fictional setting. The use of shielings in the book is (likewise) to provide realistic background for the stories there, and Munro was close to the times he is describing. This is not even close to "original research". I've clarified that Munro's book is a story.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article does cover, in questionable quality, the major aspects of the topic,

   Thank you, that is a pass on criterion (a).

1. but it definitely doesn't stay focused. If we take the heading "Surviving shielings in Scotland and elsewhere", the sentence about them being repaired each summer seems disconnected to the rest of this section.

   Yes, this sentence, although from Cooper who talks about other matters in the section, was misplaced. I've moved it to "Seasonal dwelling".

1. Furthermore, the use of the word "surviving" makes the inclusion of the 1942 building seem a strange choice.

   Removed "surviving".

The section on the isolation of the shielings also seems inappropriate here.

1. Moved to "Seasonal dwelling".

Also this section heading implies it's going to be a list, not a paragraph.

1. Removed the heading, so we just have "Legacy".

As a general note, this article focuses far too much on folk song mentions of these buildings, and doesn't deal with their actual history. I don't think there's a need to mention any given song which mentions shielings, a line along the lines of "shielings often feature in Scottish folk music" would suffice. Unless there is a third party source which can justify such a collection, though I still struggle to see how an encyclopedia would be served by including all of it more than a mere mention.

1. Given that transhumance is no longer practised in Scotland, the "Legacy" section is plainly relevant, and indeed important. The specific instances of songs and novels that preserve that legacy are certainly reliable sources in this regard.

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

1. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

1. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   In regards to b, I think that the captions could be improved somewhat. For the shieling near Laggan, I would change "contrasting" to "in contrast with", and I don't think "heathery" is the appropriate word in this context. Perhaps "in contrast with the surrounding heather-dense landscape", or something like that?

   Reworded.

   Also for the final image, I don't think "Lewis" is enough, I think "Isle of Lewis" should be repeated here.

   Done, the overlink seems reasonable here.

2. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Hi there, I'm going to review this article against the Good Article Criteria. Xx78900 (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I've decided to fail this nomination rather than put it hold, for reasons I'll explain now. I understand that this might be quite ::disappointing, but I will say that as this is an area in which I am particularly interested, should you decide to continue to improve this ::article and relist it for review, feel free to ping me directly or leave a message on my talk page, and I will promptly re-review it myself, so ::it won't be months awaiting review.

In essence, I think the sourcing and focus issues are too great to justify putting this on hold, I think it's just too far from GA standard. ::The majority of this article is just an archive of mentions of shielings in culture, instead of focusing on a description of the structure, and :: this will have to be addressed or justified before this article is ready for a second review.

Actually I'm well used to working through issues with reviewers, even when there are major items requiring rewrites. The article now places more emphasis on physical structure.

Sorry to disappoint! Xx78900 (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article, and for the apologies. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)