Talk:England in the Middle Ages/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Frickeg (talk · contribs) 12:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Will review over the next few days. Frickeg (talk) 12:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Cheers! In terms of my noting the changes made, do you have a preference whether I indent the response after the point you raised, or would you prefer them grouped together at the end of the page? I find the former easier to keep track of, but happy to work with whichever you'd prefer. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I also prefer the former, for exactly the reason you said. Frickeg (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Right, I think the changes etc. are now up to date, as per below. See what you think! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Initial note: the references contain three deadlinks. Frickeg (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Notes as I go along (will do lead at the end):

• Political history
  • Early Middle Ages
    • Inconsistent capitalisation of Roman empire - "Roman empire" in the lead, "Roman Empire" in first paragraph.

• Fixed throughout. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• • • With glossing terms, it's sometimes "term, translation" and sometimes "term, or translation" (emphasis mine). It should be consistent. (I would suggest brackets to reduce the number of commas in the text, but this is a personal preference.)

• Think these are all caught now. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• • • I was going to say something about how the article doesn't mention bretwalda as a term for king, but then I looked up that article and realised that my education had led me astray on that point. You learn something new every day! So this is a plus, clearly.
    • Wessex expanded further north into Mercia and the Danelaw, leading to England becoming one of the wealthiest kingdoms in Europe. Cite or evidence for "one of the wealthiest kingdoms in Europe"?

• I can't find it... grrr... I've removed it until I recover where I got this from! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 07:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• • • Inconsistency in the spelling of Sweyn in fourth paragraph.

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• • • Swein was followed by his son, Cnut, who liquidated many of the older English families after his seizure of power in 1016. "Was followed by" gives the impression that Danish rule from Swein to Cnut was uninterrupted. Perhaps reword?

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• • High Middle Ages
    • Did not know about Stephen of Aumale. Very interesting!

• I enjoyed uncovering that one. :) Hchc2009 (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• • • Maybe refer to King Stephen as "Stephen of Blois" at first occurrence to differentiate from the above?

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• • • Might be worth very briefly noting why she's called the Empress Matilda.

• I've added it in as a footnote. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• • • Matilda's son, Henry II, finally agreed a peace settlement at Winchester and succeeded as king in 1154.[33] First, this citation is formatted differently from the rest and one of the cites is not included in the bibliography. Secondly, I'm not sure about describing Henry as "Henry II" here since when he made the agreement he wasn't king - probably should be "the future King Henry II".

• Changes made, missing volume added - I couldn't see where the citation was formatted differently from the others though (it's probably right in front of me!). Hchc2009 (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• It's the only one with a link in it. Frickeg (talk) 08:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• • • Why is he described as "Count of Angers"? I've literally never heard that before, and the article is at Anjou.

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• • • "Intervening in Ireland" - should really say what Henry was intervening in - maybe "intervening in the disputed rule of Ireland" or "Irish succession dispute"?

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• • • Several revolts broke out, led by Henry's children who were eager to acquire power and lands, sometimes backed by France, Scotland and the Welsh princes Runon sentence.

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• • Late Middle Ages
    • Point out that Richard III was Edward IV's brother (since this was noted with George earlier). He should also be referred to as "Richard III" somewhere.

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• • • The article initially had Richard defeated by an invading Henry VI! I've fixed this. It might be worth mentioning the word "Tudor" in that last sentence somewhere, though.

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Will continue tomorrow. Frickeg (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Government and social structures
  • Early Middle Ages
    • Previously Anglo-Saxon words were italicised. This should probably be standard (thegns, ealdormen, churls, geburs, etc.).

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• • • In choosing kings, maybe mention the witan?

• Added. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• • • Third paragraph - link Wessex again? Relinking is something that may be worth looking at - there are quite a few places where something pops up again four or five subheadings down, and it's useful to link them again there. I'd say maybe the first occurrence under each first-level subheading? (Other examples include the kings, Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, and terms like the Danelaw.) This applies throughout the article.
    • Third and fourth paragraphs - inconsistency in spelling. Thegn or thane?

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• • • Moots as a redlink - is there something this could link to?

• Fixed; the wiki version doesn't have a space in it. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• • High Middle Ages
    • Italicise "villeins", "eyres"?

I was inclined not to, as they are later English terms which appear in more modern language (albeit specialised, in the the case of eyres), as opposed to being Anglo-Saxon terms. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• • Late Middle Ages
    • Link chivalry?

Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• • • What are "round table events"? Is there something this can be linked to?

• Finally found it! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Women in society
  • less access (first paragraph) - lesser access? My grammatical sense is failing me on this one.

• I've had a go; see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Looks good. Frickeg (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Identity
  • Angle and Saxon kingdoms - why not just "Anglo-Saxon"?

• I was trying to draw a link with Bede; I've made this more explicit. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• This is now the first occurrence of Bede, so he'll need a link. Frickeg (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• • Parisiens - link, and also, should it not be "Parisians"? And actually, why are they referred to as such at all - why not just Normans?

• I couldn't find an easy link. Changed to -ians as suggested. The source was saying that the Parisian French mocked the English (including, presumably, any left over Normans); shout if you think I need to clarify this. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• OK, that makes sense. Frickeg (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Jews
  • Nothing I could find in this section.
• Rise of Christianity
  • Note Roman Empire capitalisation.
  • helped by the conversion of the Franks in Northern France, whom carried considerable influence in England. Is this "whom" correct? It seems to me that the Franks are the subject of this fragment, although I can see the alternative argument.

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• • Second paragraph - capitalisation and hyphenation of "South-East" in contrast to "western", etc., previously. Again with North-East in the third paragraph.
• Religious institutions
  • By the turn of the century monastic lands, financial resources and the quality of their religious work had been much diminished. Whose religious work?

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• • As someone who reads a fair bit in this area, it took me a long time to click that West Saxon is the demonym for Wessex. Is there some way of making this clear in the article?

• I've gone for tweaking the text to avoid the construct - see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• No problems. Frickeg (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• • Note non-capitalisation of south and east.

• I think that's consistent with the rest of the article ("south of" being non-capitalised as an adjective; "South England" capitalised as a location) Hchc2009 (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• • The monasteries were brought firmed into the web of feudal relations ... "Brought firmed"?

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Church, state and heresy
  • Capitalisation of Church/church is inconsistent throughout this section.
  • Successive kings and archbishops clashed over rights of appointment and religious policy, and successive archbishops including ... Repetition of successive.

• Sorted. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• • ... were variously forced into exile, arrested by royal knights and even killed. "Or" even killed, surely?!

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• • Third paragraph - inconsistency in the spelling of Wyclif(fe). His article has Wycliffe.

• Thought I'd caught all of those... :( Done now! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Pilgrimages and crusades
  • Some pilgrims travelled further, either within to more distant sites within Britain or, in a few cases, onto the continent. Repetition of within.

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• • Capitalisation of crusades inconsistent (inc. in heading).

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• • peregrinatio - Latin?

• Can you remember which template this takes? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Not a clue, but the change made helps with clarity. Frickeg (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• • Taking up the Cross - this probably needs to be clarified as the way in which one accepted the calling as a crusader.

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Geography
  • Bears, beavers and wolves - should be able to pipelink to the species in these cases.

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• • Slightly more land was covered by trees than in the 20th century, and bears, beavers and wolves lived wild in England, bears being hunted to extinction in England by the 11th century and beavers by the 12th. Two other issues with this sentence: first, I think it's best to avoid comparisons with the 20th century if possible (after all, it is the 21st now). Second, repetition of England.

• I agree in principle, but the source explicitly compares with the 20th century, and I can't find a similar reference comparing with woodland cover in the last ten years. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Frickeg (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• • The road system was adequate ... Adequate for what?

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• • For much of the Middle Ages, England's climate differed from that in the 21st century. Again with the comparison.
  • Again, capitalisation of South-West.
  • ... but earlier versions of parks, such as hays ... Never heard of "hays" in this context before. Can we link to something?

• I've added a bit to another article and wikilinked over. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Economy and demographics
  • Fourth paragraph - link Great Slump?

• I've created a stub article and linked to it. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Technology and science
  • ... one of his often cited conclusions." Should be oft-cited?

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• • Link Bede.
  • Has Oxford been linked before? Should be here anyway.
• Armies
  • Continuing a (very) previous point, no italicisation of Anglo-Saxon words here. Should be consistent throughout the article.
  • ... but some Anglo-Saxons did fight from horseback. "On horseback"?
    • "from" is slightly more "Brit" in my experience. Either is equally correct from a military history point. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I bow to your expertise! Frickeg (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
• Navies
  • These early fleets were limited in size but grew in size ... Repetition.
  • Again with the Anglo-Saxon terms.
  • Haven't heard of buisses - link?

• I've simplified. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Fortifications
  • Back to italicisation of Anglo-Saxon.
  • the collapse of the Roman way of life - is this the best way to describe it?

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Art
  • The Bayeux Tapestry was actually woven entirely in Normandy, was it not? Should be mentioned.

• I don't think so (but I could be out of date, as scholarship shifts...) - I had thought it was made in SE England; the current wikiarticle also goes for Kent. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Literature, drama and music
  • ... such as the guitar, harp, pipes and organs. Why are pipes and organs linked and not guitar and harp? Also, why are the latter two plural and the former two not? (I understand pipes, I guess, but organs?)

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Architecture
  • ... the quality of these houses improved after the years of the Black Death ... Is there a reason for this?

• Expanded. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Historiography
  • Late-Victorian historians continued to use the chroniclers as sources, but also deployed documents such as Domesday Book and Magna Carta, alongside newly discovered financial, legal and commercial records, producing a progressive account of political and economic development in England. Runon sentence.

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Popular representations
  • Becket here is a good example of the need for a little more linking. He was linked way back up in the religion section, and the reader shouldn't have to scroll all the way back up there to find out more about him. As I said before, this kind of thing is a persistent issue throughout the article.
  • Mention of the UK - this would probably be better as England.

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Miscellany
  • For such a long and comprehensive article, an external links section may be worth considering - just links to the key sites for medieval English sources and history. Since the bibliography is so (impressively) huge, a further reading section with the most basic and influential general texts could also be helpful.
  • This is a monstrous pain of a job, and I feel horrible for suggesting it, but in the citations there should really be a space between the p. and the number (i.e. "p. 45" rather than "p.45"). I'm not going to hold up passing the article for this but if someone has the inclination it would be really nice to get it done.

• Think I've caught all of these. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Lead
  • Having whinged about underlinking above, I'm going to whinge about overlinking here - or rather, inappropriate linking:
    • "Economy" links to Economy of the United Kingdom, which is about an entirely separate entity and has no relevance to the historical period.

• I've tried an alternative. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• • • "England's population" links to Demography of England, which is almost entirely about current demography, or that since 1801.

• It ought to cover the historical period as well... I've left this one in for now . Hchc2009 (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• • • "Governance" links to Governance of England, which is explicitly post-1707 in focus.

• I've removed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• • Again it might be worth using "Henry Tudor" rather than "Henry VII" in the last sentence just to emphasise the delineation (and the identity of the next period).
  • Otherwise good.

Frickeg (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Rather horrified to stumble across the fact that the underlinking problems I identified would be technically in contravention of MOS guidelines. While I've rarely found something in the MOS I personally disagree with more, you should obviously feel free to ignore the bulk of those points, with the exception of the Bede one (because he was actually linked below the first occurrence rather than above) and the Oxford one. Frickeg (talk) 06:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm with you on the MOS being over-strict here; I'd prefer it if the MOS gave a broad guideline, but was then flexible if the reuse of an additional link would make a particular difference to the reader. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe all the points have been dealt with, so I'm passing this. It's an outstanding article - well-written, detailed, comprehensive and meticulously referenced - that was a pleasure to read and to review. Thank you for all your work! Frickeg (talk) 08:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)