Talk:Art in Medieval Scotland/Archive 1

Archive 1

Images for Pictish art section

The Dunnichen Stone

I'm not overly keen on the Pictish beast image... it looks very similar to some published artwork I've seen elsewhere, albeit with a modified background. If scanned there may be copyvio issues, depending where it comes from. I think the original artwork is by J Romily Allen who died in 1907, so we may be okay.

An alternative would be to go for a type I pictish stone, to show Pictish symbols in context. Aberlemno 1 would be an obvious choice, but we already have Aberlemno 2. The Dunnichen stone is quite nice...

Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you are right - go for it.--SabreBD (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It's messing a bit with the formatting, but I'd like to add a bit to the pictish stones section, which might deal with that problem (if you don't mind) Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It created a sandwiching of text problem, so I moved it to the right and removed the broach, but I think it is overall effect is better.--SabreBD (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Art in Medieval Scotland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 14:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Will review it within the next 48 hours/once the sourcing is sorted. The one thing which stands out initially is the sourcing. I'd suggest use of Template:Sfn or a note system and rather than state pages xx-xx use note citations, give the exact number each time. You also don't need to list the same book more than once. If you look at William Burges note the way the books are all at the bibliography and the page numbers are given. Clicking on the note will take you to the book listing which in turn is linked to google books. I'd suggest copying this and overhauling the sourcing first like this and then we can continue. If you want a hand starting off, contact me on my talk page.

Another thing, please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the contents of the article. Nothing should be in the lead which isn't in the main body.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to appear ungracious, but the existing system was quite valid and a matter of choice. I would rather leave it as it was as it was.--SabreBD (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sfn isn't compulsory, but your version rewrote the same books multiple times in the notes which I don't think is advised. Page note and then book once underneath is the norm. I just think that if at some point this goes on to FA then that would be identified anyway. Isn't it better to use a system which the majority of editors are using for the higher-end articles? Sorry, don't want you to feel like I'm forcing unwanted changes upon you but notes and bibliography is pretty standard practice on wikipedia, even for those who don't use sfn, and precise page number is preferred for each citation. I've requested input from some of the most prolific editors/reviewers for an opinion on the matter as I may be wrong on this matter.Tibetan Prayer ^᧾ 19:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

... of which I am not one, but I have many of them on my watchlist. Dr B, I mean TP, the previous citation system was good enough for Malleus, I mean Eric C, at Geography of Scotland in the Middle Ages / Talk:Geography of Scotland in the Middle Ages/GA1, if that's of interest. WP:CITEVAR and all that. If I was writing a series of articles and someone came and changed the referencing style on one of them to their particular non-compulsory preference without even asking me first (particularly as the opening gambit in a GA review when these changes are in no way relevant to the GA criteria), I think I'd be more ungracious than SabreBD's gracious reply. Cheers. Bencherlite^Talk 19:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It drives me to mild distraction when people ignore WP:CITEVAR for reasons of simple personal preference, and I take Bencherlite's point, above, but I'm bound to say that the referencing format as it was before you changed it seemed to me about as user-friendly as razor wire. I don't like sfn very much, as it produces horrible quantities of blue links to smack the reader in the eyeball, but it's certainly an improvement in this case. However one gets there, "Page note and then book once underneath" as you say above, is the norm, and much the kindest thing for our readers, surely? Tim riley (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

"sfn" is certainly not compulsory, and widely disliked, even above other templated styles, for a number of reasons, especially at FAC (though it is accepted there, as is the original style). "Page note and then book once underneath" is indeed best imo, but there is no need to use any templates at all, still less sfn. These changes don't have consensus support here. Johnbod (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes that's what I thought, I know Tim and Cass don't favour sfn either, but the multiple same book listings in the notes isn't advised is it? I am happy to revert my edits, but like Tim I found the referencing system to be unfavorable. I don't think it's stopping this from passing GA, but I think that if this editor takes articles to FA the sourcing issue is going to be picked up on.Tibetan Prayer ^᧾ 20:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

OK I've reverted my conversion and gone back to how it was. Everybody happy with the multiple books in the notes and a single book listed as "references"? I'm not, admittedly, sorry. Can somebody take over this review for me? Certainly looks GA worthy to me but it's probably best that I don't continue. Tibetan Prayer ^᧾ 20:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

[Edit conflict]

Thanks to everyone for these comments. The reason I am happier with the current style is largely because it most closely resembles the academic writing with which I am familiar. A secondary issue is that is helps the moving of material between articles. I do not feel that it is unfriendly to users, in fact I find the sfn system extremely unfriendly for new editors, who find it very difficult to make additions to articles using this rather counter-intuitive system. This is (more or less) the first system listed at WP:CITEFOOT. I am not sure why repeating full titles is such an issue, as Wikipedia can afford the space and it saves readers having to move through other lists. My reading of the guideline is that shorter titles can be used, not that they have to be used. However, I am happy to use a system that uses a long title for the first instance and then a short title thereafter, with a bibliography. It just makes life a bit harder when summaries or expansions are made.--SabreBD (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I used to source like you Sabre, and some reviewers would refuse to pass until the "problematic referencing" was sorted! I can't blame you for preferring not using templates at least but if the book ordering and consistency isn't sorted now it is going to cause problems for you at reviews in the future I think, especially FA. Best of luck.Tibetan Prayer ^᧾ 21:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Did you see the bit where I was happy with short title and a bibliography?--SabreBD (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Would the referencing system in Harold Davidson be acceptable to you?Tibetan Prayer ^᧾ 21:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Butting in - it's perfectly acceptable to use the current referencing style (where everything is given at the footnote) at FAC. See Icelandic horse. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but this article uses a lot more books doesn't it and there is one book underneath, why not the others too? Should the book underneath be removed then do you think? Tibetan Prayer ^᧾ 22:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

As long as the references are verifiable, their format isn't a part of the GA criteria. See Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I often get things thrown at me at GA review which are not in any way compulsory for GA. I was just suggesting a more common referencing system like sfn or pure note form like Tim and Brian without the blue text as I believe that some people might pick up on it should he ever take it to FA and I've always been a fan of consistency in formatting and would prefer that editors could agree on one or two styles of notation across the website. If the books are all to be listed in the notes, then I would suggest removing the single book from underneath and follow the example above. Anyway, I'll let somebody else review this fine article to GA criteria.Tibetan Prayer ^᧾ 06:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I think, as this discussion shows, along with others elsewhere, that imposed consistency in referencing styles is unattainable & just more trouble than it's worth. I do agree with your broad point, but not about the solution, nor about the best alternative, nor that it is an issue (beyond a comment) to insist on for a GA review. Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Tibetan Prayer, if you are sure that you do not want complete the review, I believe that this review has to be closed as a fail. I quite understand and no hard feelings. If anyone else who has participated wants to open a new review that is well and good as well.--SabreBD (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

That would be unfair on you. OK then, I'll resume the review tomorrow, but I don't want every suggestion answered back here with a "not necessary" type of response!! Tibetan Prayer ^᧾ 19:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• Early middle ages is in lower casing. I usually see it capitalized, if there is some reason why not, can you pipe the exact link to the article instead to avoid the redirect? High and Late Middle Ages is capitalized so it should probably too I think.
•  Done--SabreBD (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Scotland adopted the Romanesque relatively late" I'd put style after Romanesque, especially as underneath you refer the Gothic style rather than the Gothic.
•  Done--SabreBD (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Native craftsmanship can be seen in variety of items" - a variety of items
•  Done--SabreBD (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Pictish stones

• Can you wikilink Firth of Forth, as I'm not sure where it is and wanted to click on it to get a visual picture. I'd link Shetland too, but I know some people don't like linking more regional areas or even cities, so I'll let you decide if you want to be consistent throughout. But for editors unfamiliar with Scotland, to click on links like Fife and Ayrshire I think is useful, you do link Northumbria further down.
•  Done I linked Shetland as well.--SabreBD (talk) 11:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Class III stones are thought to overlap chronologically with Class II stones. " I'd cite this.
•  Done--SabreBD (talk) 11:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Irish Scots Art

• "The kingdom of Dál Riata has been seen as a cross-roads " Seen by whom, scholars, archaeologists?
•  Done--SabreBD (talk) 11:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Insular art

• "Distribution in Scotland is heaviest in the Highlands and Islands and they can be dated to the period c. 750 to 1150." Quite a strong claim and with dates so I'd source that.
•  Done--SabreBD (talk) 11:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Late Middle architecture

• " fifteenth century.[36][37] including -I think you meant to place a comma here!
•  Done--SabreBD (talk) 11:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Late decorative arts

• "Limoges enamels" - Can you cut off the link after l to avoid the redirect?
•  Done--SabreBD (talk) 11:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• " Universities of St Andrews and Glasgow universities." - Remove universities at the end.
•  Done--SabreBD (talk) 11:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Certainly a very good introduction to artifacts produced in Scotland during this period and the type of items being produced at the time. Excellent work, most interesting I found. I'll await your response to the above points before passing this.Tibetan Prayer ^᧾ 10:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that is everything. Many thanks for the detailed advice.--SabreBD (talk) 11:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You're most welcome!

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Article looks in great condition, am happy to pass this as a Good Article. Well done!Tibetan Prayer ^᧾ 12:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)