Talk:Geography of Scotland in the early modern era

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Geography of Scotland in the early modern era/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Notecardforfree (talk · contribs) 22:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	For the most part, the prose is excellent. However, see my comments for portions of the article that still require clarification. All issues have been resolved.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead provides an excellent summary of the material contained in this article.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	All claims include citations to reliable sources.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The author utilizes reliable sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No concerns about original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This article satisfies the breadth requirement.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	This article does not lose focus.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	There are no problems with neutrality.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	This article has been stable since June 2015.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Excellent choice of images, all of which are properly licensed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All images are relevant and contain suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	See comments. This article satisfies all GA criteria.

Comments from Notecardforfree

This is a very well-written article that is very close to passing this GA review. You have done an excellent job summarizing a very complex topic into a manageable, interesting, and engaging article. I found only a few remaining issues that need to be resolved before this article can pass this review; I have listed the remaining issues below, according to the section in which they appear. I should also mention that I did not have access to the sources you cite to support the claims in this article, so I am going to assume good faith that everything is accurate.

Lead

• You write: “This was the beginning of a process that would create a landscape of rectangular fields, carefully located farm complexes with interconnecting roads.” I think you need a conjunction after the comma.

 Done--SabreBD (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Physical

• You say that the lowlands “has easier communications.” What do you mean by the word “communications?” Do you mean that it was easier for people to travel through this area, thereby facilitating communication with other people in the community?

• Communications also means ability to travel.--SabreBD (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Indeed it does, and I applaud your efforts to forestal the decline of the English language through your precise word-choice in this article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• You say that Lowland fermtoun and Highland baile were “settlements of a handful of families that jointly farmed an area notionally suitable for two or three plough teams …” What exactly do you mean by “notionally suitable?” Do you mean “theoretically suitable?”

• Not really, it was notional by this point.--SabreBD (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• I've never seen the word "notionally" used in this manner, but I will defer to your good judgment in matters of vocabulary. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Notes

• Is there a reason why some footnotes contain ISBN numbers while others do not? I ask because WP:CITE requires that "Each article should use one citation method or style throughout." If you are using a consistent citation system, then you are okay, but I just want to make sure you aren't using multiple systems in the same article.

• They all have isbn nos. Have you been confused by the use of short titles for repeat references here.--SabreBD (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• It looks like you are, indeed, using a consistent citation system, but I think you need to change the citation to Wormald in footnote 3 to a full citation. Otherwise, I will AGF that the citation system here is internally consistent. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Bibligraphy

• The citation to Ogilvie's book is missing an ISBN number.

• They didn't have isbns in 1952.--SabreBD (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Please let me know if you have any questions or if any of my comments don't make sense. I will put this review on hold for one week so that these issues can be resolved. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• All issues have been addressed, and any remaining issues are not relevant to the GA criteria. Congratulations for passing this GA review! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)