Jump to content

Talk:England in the High Middle Ages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Change from redirect

[edit]

This page contains some material from House of Plantagenet and England in the Middle Ages.--SabreBD (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the names of Richard I (1189-99) and John (1199-1216). Maymichael2 (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on England in the High Middle Ages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:England in the High Middle Ages/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim O'Doherty (talk · contribs) 17:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Looks like a well-written and thorough article to me

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    I feel like the lead paragraph might be too long here. I'd consider splitting it up into another paragraph in the lead, or condensing it. Maybe a bit more of an overview rather than a timeline; it's well written, though just a bit too long. I suggest the following changes:
  • considered the first Angevin king of England - feels a bit long. Maybe just remove it and save it for the rest of the article.
  • and Henry making a dramatic exhibition of penance - Ditto
  • Walter Scott's location of Robin Hood in the reign of Richard I and his emphasis on the conflict between Saxons and Normans set the template for later fiction and film adaptations. - I'd suggest removing this too. It's a bit long and is already in "Popular representations"
All fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Unlimitedlead: Cool, passed. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking further down, the article seems to be well written. I can't fault the "Normans" section at all, it flows very well and is easy to understand for non-experts. The "Angevins" section I only have very minor criticisms of: Shouldn't "High King of Ireland" be fully capitalised as a MOS:JOBTITLE, rather than a description? I also don't really get this sentence: "In the 1160s the deposed King of Leinster Diarmait Mac Murchada turned to Henry for assistance in 1167, and the English king agreed to allow Diarmait to recruit mercenaries within his empire". Shouldn't it read "The deposed King of Leinster Diarmait, Mac Murchada, turned to Henry for assistance in 1167; Henry allowed Diarmait to recruit mercenaries within his empire", or something similar? Unless I'm missing something, "in the 1160s" and "in 1167" is tautology/contradiction. Lower down, shouldn't it be "what miserable drones[...]" instead, given that it's a phrase? "Revolt of 1173–1174" shouldn't have a capital letter either. I don't see anything obviously bad in the rest of the article; I think the "Popular representations" section is some particularly good prose. Other than some minor copyediting, and condensing the lead a bit, I think that this would pass the well-written requirement easily.

Should be all done now! Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Again, I suggest reworking the lead a bit, but I'm not going to withhold this one.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    Looking closely at the references, barring a few at the end, this is what I got. I've not repeated those by the same author:
  • Richard Huscroft - looks reliable, has a doctorate in medieval history
  • Pauline Stafford - looks reliable, as Professor Emerita of Early Medieval History
  • Nick Higham - looks reliable, as Professor of Early Medieval and Landscape History
  • Hugh Thomas - looks reliable
  • Ian Walker - can't find much on him, am willing to AGF on the source
  • Larry Krieger, Kenneth Neill, and Steven Jantzen - can't find much on them, but willing to AGF on the source
  • The Kaufmans - similarly, can't find much information on either, but will AGF
  • Judith Green - looks reliable, Emerita Professor of Medieval History
  • Nicholas Hooper - seems generally reliable, looking at his works
  • Simon Schama - looks reliable, as University Professor of History and Art History
  • Lindy Grant - looks reliable, professor emerita of medieval history
  • Mike Ashley - can't find anything on him at all, AGF
  • Marcus Bull - looks reliable
  • W. Warren Lewis - can't find anything, AGF
  • Jean Favier - looks reliable
  • Charles Carlton - looks good, some of his works are used as refs in Charles I of England, which is a featured article
  • Ralph V Turner - looks reliable
  • Robert Bartlett - looks good to me
  • Philippe Contamine - looks reliable, although his name seems to have been misspelled in the ref
  • J. S. Hamilton - looks to be generally reliable
  • Danny Danziger and John Gillingham - looks good, are "medieval expert[s]"
  • Janet Burton - looks reliable, professor of medieval history
  • Mavis Mate - looks good
  • Susan Johns - looks good
  • Miri Rubin - looks reliable, Professor of Medieval and Early Modern History
  • Alan Forey - looks reliable, reader emeritus in history
  • Diana Webb - looks good, Senior Lecturer in History
  • Leonard Cantor - AGF
  • Christopher Dyer - looks reliable, Emeritus Professor of Regional and Local History
  • Stuart Prior - looks good to me
  • Mark Bailey - looks reliable, PhD in History
  • Gerald Hodgett - look good to me
  • Ian Blanchard - AGF
  1. b. (citations to reliable sources):
    c. (OR):
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Earwig returns 70.8% "violation possible". This isn't brilliant, but I will assume good faith here, as it's obviously not done maliciously at all. Maybe something to look at closer though. Won't withhold.
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    Reading it, everything seems balanced, and no topic is given more airtime than the others, proportionally speaking. Looks solid.
    b. (focused):
    Really impressed by how concise this is. Passes with flying colours.
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    See 3a comment.
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Looking at the article history for the past two weeks, I fail to find a single revert.
  5. 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):
    Can't fault it here at all. Well illustrated, good captions and good ALTs. Everything's suitably licensed as far as I can tell.
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  6. Overall:
    Pass/fail:
    Altogether, I enjoyed reviewing this article. Really informative, well-written, succinct, and to the point. Again, some minor issues with the prose and the lead, but those can easily be resolved. I don't think Earwig is a deal-breaker here. Solid article. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you kindly for taking up the review! Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that the Anglo Saxon elite of England was replaced with a new class of Norman nobility during the High Middle Ages with a government that can be described as feudal? Source: Carpenter 2004, p. 4; Davies 1990, p. 20; Huscroft 2005, p. 81 , Carpenter 2004, pp. 84–85; Barlow 1999, pp. 88–89

Improved to Good Article status by Unlimitedlead (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 03:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/England in the High Middle Ages; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • GA, despite which the article has non-DYK issues. The High Middle Ages generally is "the period of European history that lasted from AD 1000 to 1300" - approx of course. A start at 1066 is normal for English history, but here the period stops at 1216. Are there sources for this? It gives a period of 150 years, exactly half the normal. 1216 is not really taken as a major milestone by historians in my experience. The culture section is pretty pathetic and the lead paras too long. AGF on all 3 hooks, though the first may be too long? Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod Unlimitedlead Onegreatjoke Trying to figure out the very high earwig score. Any ideas? Lightburst (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. The phrases highlighted at earwig date from 2014 on this article, and the low-quality blogs earwig pulled up have no date attached them. Additionally, they do not cite any of their sources, making this whole thing very suspicious. I suspect it may be an instance of blogs copying from Wikipedia yet again. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Almost certainly. The top one "December 1, 1135: Death of Henry I, King of the English" seems to have been posted 1 December 2022. Johnbod (talk) 02:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will accept that websites have copied from Wikipedia. Lightburst (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:England_in_the_High_Middle_Ages&oldid=1257965059"