Talk:Women in early modern Scotland/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Peter Isotalo (talk · contribs) 19:11, 28 March 2014 (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, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    A few minor quips:
    • Not sure I grasp what "a period of life-cycle service" means. Can it be clarified?
     Done--SabreBD (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
    • When citing specific authors (like Glover), it would be a good idea with a minimal introduction. For example "historian of this and that" or "author of books on whatever".
     Done--SabreBD (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Things like the Bishop's Wars and Cameronians are likely not all that well-known subjects. A really brief explanation would be a boon to readers.
     Done--SabreBD (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Passages like "Under the reformed Kirk" and "refused to recognise women as witnesses or independent criminals and responsibly for their actions was assumed to lie" would benefit from commas to improve readability.
     Done--SabreBD (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • "Women probably had more freedom of expression..." The use of "probably" suggests a conclusion by a scholar. I would recommend writing out the name of that scholar. Maybe even throw in a brief motivation for good measure
     Done--SabreBD (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not putting it as a requirement to pass, but would you consider using shorthand notes with a separate list of sources? I believe it makes the refs easier to read and follow.
     Done--SabreBD (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    The major social topics are all covered. If there is a future ambition to push for FA-status, I recommend adding some cultural history, for example games, music, cuisine, and such. And some more information on child-rearing would be very informative.
    All good suggestions, but the truth is there is limited evidence available for the period and even more limited secondary literature, but I will keep them in mind.--SabreBD (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
    Hope you find some sources. Otherwise, I guess some general fleshing-out might be good. Peter Isotalo 18:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    I'm not comfortable with the description "theoretically patriarchal". The in-depth explanation clarifies things quite well, but this particular choice of words seems far more than the cited source:"In theory within this patriarchal society, husbands ruled their wives and households". The definition of a patriarchy is not rigid and societies can never be either fully patriarchal or non-patriarchal. There's always some degree of leeway, as with other social systems where a particular group dominates.
    I need a bit more direction here - is the objection to the word "theoretical"? In a sense all patriarchal societies are theoretically patriarchal, just like all absolute monarchies are only theoretically absolute. I was just trying to help the reader out here and preventing an apparent contradiction of then going on to talk about how it was not patriarchal, but it is not going break my heart to remove the conditional clause if it is a problem.--SabreBD (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
    "Theoretical" is the problem, yes. I agree with your social description overall, but I think this particular word is bound to cause more confusion than clarity. The nuances presented in the details is a much better way of explaining it. Peter Isotalo 18:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
    OK that is easy to fix.--SabreBD (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Per the minor issues raised.