This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medieval Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Medieval Scotland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Medieval ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject Medieval ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject Medieval ScotlandMedieval Scotland articles
Hi SabreBD, I'll be glad to take this review; it's always a pleasure to read your work. I hope to post initial comments in the next 1-5 days. Thanks as always for your work on Scotland topics -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I've been a bit slow coming back to this, but I haven't forgotten you. Should have my initial comments finished by Wednes. at the latest. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm about halfway. So far this looks strong, but I'm mostly doing a read for prose at this point rather than source review. As usual, I'm doing some tweaks and fixes as I go; please revert any with which you disagree. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"While our knowledge of early systems of law" -- I'm always a little wary of the vague "we" without a clear referent; I'm assuming you're not including me in that we, for example. =) Would it be fair to write "While modern knowledge" or "While historians' knowledge"?
"In victory they may have received rewards in return" -- I assume you mean "underling kings" by "they" here--what would be the proper term? Vassals? Subjects?
Done Since this is pre-feudal cannot really say vassals or subjects. I opted for subordinate rulers - some may have called themselves kings and some not.--SabreBD (talk)08:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The first ceremony for which we have details" -- "we" ---> "historians"
", which describe a ceremony that combined" -- "which" doesn't really work here, since the previous noun is "a ceremony for which we have details". Could this be "an account describes" or "accounts describe"?
The Roman Law principle that "a king is emperor in his own kingdom" can be seen in Scotland from the mid-fifteenth century. In 1469 Parliament passed an act that declared that James III possessed "full jurisdiction and empire within his realm". -- as quotations, should get individual inline citations.
"The first Scottish monarch to actually wear such a crown was James V, whose diadem was reworked to include arches in 1532, which were re-added when it was reconstructed in 1540, which remains the Crown of Scotland." -- lots of clauses here; consider breaking into two sentences.
" In Scandinavian-held Udal law formed the basis of the legal system, and it is known that the Hebrides were taxed using the Ounceland measure" -- is there a word missing after "Scandinavian-held"? I'm having trouble parsing this, but may just be a brain malfunction on my end.
I think that covers any concerns for my initial pass. Let me know when you've had a chance to address these, and I'll take another look and do a more detailed source review to check for comprehensiveness, accuracy, copyvio etc. Thanks again for your work--I think it's coming along great. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
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).
This is a hard criterion for me to judge, since I can't turn up reference articles for comparison in other works. However, the article appears thorough, and comparison to the article's sources suggests main aspects are covered.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6.Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: