Jump to content

Talk:Scotland in the early modern period

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

Dates

[edit]

Is there any particular reason why this article runs to 1799 (or is it 1815?)? The early modern era usually runs up to about the mid-18th century when industrialisation began. In addition, the end of the Jacobite Rebellions would also seem to be an obvious political watershed. Are there any serious objections to moving the 18th century off to the modern Scotland article?--SabreBD (talk) 07:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should add the other logical cut off date is the union in 1707 and I am open to suggestions on that one too.--SabreBD (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Germany, Britain and France articles all take it up to the Napoleonic Wars. That sounds fair enough to me, as does the end of the 45 (though 07 is too early). Happy to hear other opinions on this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just inviting any more opinions on this one, since I have returned to plans to create the missing history article for modern Scotland. Of course it makes sense for France and Germany (and other countries) to use the French Revolution or Napoleonic Wars as their watershed, since those events had a profound impact on their constitutions. In Britain c.1750 is probably more usual since the Industrial Revolution is considered more significant. I agree that 1707 is rather too early. In terms of making sense 1746 tends to work best as it groups the contributions to Britain, Empire etc together. However, if that is not acceptable I could feed the 18th century stuff back here (basically its a more coherent and sourced resummary of the articles drawn on here).--SabreBD (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Scotland in the Early Modern Era/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Royroydeb (talk · contribs) 18:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC) Hi,I will be doing this review.[reply]
James V

  • " regents"-explain it a little.
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "began to take revenge on a number of them and their families"-why?
Because they held him prisoner. Hopefully that is clear from the change explaining about the regents above.--SabreBD (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He continued his father's policy of subduing the rebellious Highlands, Western and Northern isles and the troublesome borders"-citation for it.
Its at the end of the section. I think something went wrong with the citations in this paragraph, so I am just checking them through.--SabreBD (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He also continued the French alliance"-what was before that he continued?To be precise you can write a little about the French alliance.
 Done
  • "James V's domestic and foreign policy successes were overshadowed by another disastrous campaign against England"-What were the flaws in the campaign that it became disastrous?
Losing the Battle of Solway Moss was the disaster. I have stressed this a bit more.--SabreBD (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RRD13 (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rough Wooing

  • Why was the political nation divided?
  • "Failure of the pro-English to deliver a marriage between the infant Mary and Edward, "-why there was failure?

Protestant Reformation

  • "reducing the powers of bishops"-How were their powers reduced?

RRD13 (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On all three of these points, I am not sure that explaining all these details is a good idea. The article is already long and in these sections it is attempting to provide a concise summary, allowing readers to use the main article links if they want more detail. It could not possibly provide detail on every issue that might be prompted by the text and this is not really a requirement of GA.--SabreBD (talk) 09:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mary,Queen of Scots

[edit]
  • defeat at Battle of Langside-who defeated her?
  • she took refuge in England-where in England?
  • leaving her young son-who is that son?

James VI

[edit]

I would suggest just wrapping up the review, and failing if the above concerns haven't already been addressed, since this has been too slow-moving. Wizardman 04:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been waiting for some kind of significant progress on the review and a response to my point about adding detail above, but maybe you are right that we should wrap it up as it is progressing very slowly.--SabreBD (talk) 09:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give him a couple days and if nothing happens I'll pass it. Wizardman 16:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks.--SabreBD (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on review status: I just took a quick look to see why the review was still ongoing after nearly three months. My feeling is that the issues raised in the Mary, Queen of Scots and James VI sections need to be addressed before this could ever be passed, so unless they are, it should be failed.
Addressing them should be easy, though I think that the Mary section needs just a bit more detail: The first paragraph should certainly make it clear here that Mary's son was by Lord Darnley, since there are three husbands mentioned in the course of the paragraph. I agree with Royroydeb that the next paragraph should at least mention who defeated Mary at Langside. It might be worth mentioning where in England she took refuge; I'd just replace "young son" with "James VI"; it's the same as the previously mentioned "infant son", but the conflicting descriptions may lead some readers to think it's two different sons. In the James VI section, I agree with both of the comments.
However, I think this needs a new reviewer who can give such a long, involved article a proper review. Royroydeb has covered only the first subsection of the first of seven sections: to pass an article of such length and depth when under a tenth of it has been reviewed seems inappropriate. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case is there any way of getting a full review without having to fail and go to the bottom of the pile? I have hung on and on because it takes so long to get anybody to review a large article like this in the first place.--SabreBD (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SabreBD, there's no reason to go to the bottom of the pile. You can make a request at WT:GAN, in the hopes that someone is willing to take over. If no one takes it over, we can put it back in the reviewing pool for someone to pick up: it will retain its seniority as the second entry in World history, though I think the restart technically counts as not being listed on the first attempt.
However, I think you need to be willing to make a commitment to respond in a timely fashion to the reviewer if you do—it doesn't look good that you haven't addressed some fairly straightforward issues in a month's time here, and your failure to respond to being pinged eleven days ago on your other GAN at Talk:Government in early modern Scotland/GA1 (or the original review nearly two weeks prior) is also far from ideal. I'm not sure a reset would be appropriate if you don't take action on the issues raised here on December 16 and that I reiterated a few hours ago. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Scotland in the early modern period/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 23:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I am starting a review of this article. North8000 (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review discussion

[edit]

This looks like really good work.

There are a few sentences which use the term "long minority" with no link or explanation of what that means. Without that a reader can't understand what that portion of the sentence is saying. Could you clarify? I tried doing it myself but couldn't find out what the term means. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I linked to minority reign.--SabreBD (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. North8000 (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, under Charles 1, could you explain "ruled without recourse to parliament"? North8000 (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 DoneI substituted calling parliament - hope that does it.--SabreBD (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. North8000 (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One vague comment. I'm guessing that it comes from having expertise from being from England/Scotland or knowing the history/culture, or expertise that comes from knowing the unique words of British English, (I'm from the US and my friends consider me to have a large vocabulary) but as I work through the article I do find myself making a lot of "trips" to the dictionary or to other Wikipedia articles to understand what is written. I've been adding a few internal links or tweaks as I go along, or bringing up open issues, and this comment is merely to let you know where I'm coming from rather than being an issue or needing a response. North8000 (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved (no specific issue)North8000 (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These were the December 16th questions from GA1

Mary,Queen of Scots
  1. defeat at Battle of Langside-who defeated her? Note 1
  2. she took refuge in England-where in England? Note 2
  3. leaving her young son-who is that son? Note 1
James VI
  1. How did Esme Stewart became his powerful male favourites? I mean what did he do? Note 2
  2. "who provided him with two sons and a daughter"-what does it mean? Note 3
Note 1: I believe that that would be a good idea to add this, if the info is available, but does not rise to the level a problem that needs resolving to pass GA. What do you think?
Note 2: IMHO, while it might be good to add this info, IMHO I see no particular strong reason for doing so.
Note 3: To me this is quite clear in it's context.

Regarding, #1 and #3 under "Mary Queen of Scotts" above, I believe that that would be a good idea to add this, if the info is available, but does not rise to the level a problem that needs resolving to pass GA. What do you think about adding that info? North8000 (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is no problem. I just need to find the sources (or check that it is in the existing sources).--SabreBD (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have done 1 and 3 under Mary. Not quite sure where you stand under the ones for James. Does something need adding here?--SabreBD (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Sabrebd and BlueMoonset. When I review and article for GA I try to be "middle of the road" regarding toughness. That includes taking, valuing, respecting and appreciating thoughts and input such as that from BlueMoonset. However, if I made the standard to make following all input from everybody mandatory for meeting GA, then that be a much much higher standard. So on these things I feel that I should follow a "middle of the road" standard course that I set. A my though on these is that most of them are very good ideas and suggestions, and none are mandatory to pass or of impact on the "middle of the range" GA standard that I am working to follow. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
i'll be honest, North8000: if I thought I had asked for anything complex, or requested that good prose be upgraded instead of problematic phrases, I could see you making that argument. It isn't about following input from everybody, it's about meeting GA standards: that's the guiding principle. I have specified what I consider to be prose in the James VI section that does not meet the "clear and concise" standard for an article to become a GA (all of the article's prose has to be clear and concise, not just some of it, even with a "middle of the road" course)—and am very disappointed that SabreBD has not addressed these easily solved issues that anyone, once they've been pointed out, ought to fix as a matter of course. (I have just made adjustments to the Mary section to address the other issues I raised, since they don't require specialized knowledge.) I don't understand why you aren't supporting what are—let's face it—fixes that are not only needed but that would take maybe ten minutes for someone knowledgeable on the topic to do (up to half an hour if additional research is required). Having seen the problem and knowing the standards, I don't feel I have a choice: if this short section is not improved to the "clear and concise" standard and the article is listed anyway, I will pull it into a Good Article reassessment until it is: this is, I feel—and I have 30 Good Articles to my credit—the minimum that must be done to the paragraph to bring it up to Good Article quality, as it is not at that level now. Regards, BlueMoonset (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First my apologies for the delay. I was watching my watch list and missed the updates here until today. North8000 (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can sidestep the area of disagreement (which is simply whether those issues are on the level to preclude GA status) by asking if User:Sabrebd, yourself or anybody wants to work on those items? North8000 (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BlueMoonset, I applaud your work, and respect your work and comments. And regarding the items in your post, the real issue is whether the items as written should preclude it from GA status. IMHO those are just "it would be nice to add additional information" ideas. And so IMHO, the answer on whether the current stat should preclude GA status is "no" both by the "middle of the road" interpretation of the GA standard that I try to follow / implement, and even by an interpretation a few levels tougher than that. Again, I respect your work and comments, but if you feel that those should preclude GA status, I must respectfully disagree. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • North8000, if I had access to the cited sources I would happily revise all the prose if only to have this done with; unfortunately, I can only get a limited view of those pages. I did apply the suggested correction to the final sentence of the section, so that's taken care of. I have posted comments to the section you started on Sabrebd's talk page. Finally, I've made the change I suggested regarding moving "Earl of Lennox" (and adding "Duke"), and added a "clarification needed" tag to the one unclear section remaining. Obviously, it is inappropriate to list an article as a GA while such a tag remains on the article, and equally inappropriate to remove the tag without doing something to address the problem. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sabrebd could you clarify what "but the 1621 levy was still being collected over a decade later" means in the "The Crown" subsection? North8000 (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 12:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done.--SabreBD (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First my apologies for the delay. I was watching my watch list and missed the updates here until today. North8000 (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A wording problem still remained. I tried to fix, based on what I think it meant. Can you check me on that? North8000 (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. North8000 (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outside comment

[edit]

I wanted to point out that a number of issues brought up in the initial (and never completed) review here have yet to be addressed by the nominator, and I think they need to be before this review can be closed as successful. The original review only covered the first 10% or so of the article, so I imagine there will be additional fixes needed in the remainder, but there is still some work to be done from before. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not carry through on those suggestions because I was not able to discuss them with the reviewer. They are all about adding more information. I am fine with that if it is deemed necessary in a review, but this article is already very long and I was trying to keep the narrative to a minimum, so there needs to be some consideration of the balance of two issues here.--SabreBD (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the previous review a couple of times to gain insight, but this is a new review, and so any questions should be raised here. Regarding those types of areas in general:
  • IMO, an average reader should be able to understand what a sentence is saying, possibly with a quick look at a dictionary or a provided link. When I see a case where is such is not the case, I'll bring it up. I brought up a couple. I'm still having trouble with "regency" even though I added an internal link. In the first review Sabrebd indicated that they explained it; possibly I missed that.
  • When a statement sorts of leaves the reader in a lurch by an omission, I tend to mentioned those. For example, if it says XYZ's army attack the castle, but doesn';t say the result, I'll usually ask for that to be added (if the info is available). I haven't seen any of these yet here.
That said, if it is just a case where additional depth of coverage might be desired by someone interested in that particular area, I tend to think that such might not even be a good idea for this article, much less a requirement for GA. The article is huge already and about a huge topic, with many many sub-articles. And there are hundreds of cases where a reader interested in that particular area might like to know more. I think that it would be mistake to try to accommodate all of those in this article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that all of my comments were germane, and were not asking for any significant expansion, just more clarity and/or better worded. You could certainly have discussed them with me, SabreBD, but you didn't. I'm happy to discuss them now, if you think they aren't necessary. Or, North8000, if you'd prefer, I can repost the relevant comments here to make them part of this review, too. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The situation at the first review looks complex / interrelated and now partially obsolete and I'm really not up for dealing with it or a cut and paste of it. The pre-Dec 16th comments were responded to and that was the end of the thread on those. The Dec 16th comments were open and then you commented on the comments. If there is an area where you know how to fix/improve it (i.e. have the requested info as I think you indicated in a few cases) I'd recommend just putting them in. Also if you have any specific comments about the article that you care to put in here as being your current thoughts, I'd be very happy to see those. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
North8000, here's what I think needs fixing, as taken from my comments on the GA1: I think that the Mary section needs just a bit more detail: The first paragraph should certainly make it clear here that Mary's son was by Lord Darnley, since there are three husbands mentioned in the course of the paragraph. I agree that the next paragraph should at least mention who defeated Mary at Langside. It might be worth mentioning where in England she took refuge. Finally, I'd just replace "young son" with "James VI"; it's the same as the previously mentioned "infant son", but the conflicting descriptions may lead some readers to think it's two different sons. It would take maybe a dozen words to add significant clarity here.
In the James VI section, both of the comments are also indicative of writing issues. It is unclear what "the first of the 13-year-old James' powerful male favourites" means in this context: is it that James had many favorites as a 13-year-old, but Stewart ranked first among them in popularity and/or temporal power (or some other criterion), or was it that James started gathering favorites at 13, and Stewart was the first? He was Stewart at the time (1579), and since he gained the titles of Earl of Lennox and Duke of Lennox in 1580 and 1581 respectively, it's clear James (who had to grant the titles) did favor him. (If you mention this at the end of the above quoted sentence, you can omit "and future Earl of Lennox" earlier.) The "who provided him with two sons and a daughter" was questioned, I think, because the wording isn't clear (she could have been previously married and brought stepchildren to the marriage); "who bore him two sons and a daughter" is more to the point and isn't ambiguous. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria final checklist

[edit]

Well-written

Factually accurate and verifiable

Broad in its coverage

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Result

[edit]

Congratulations, this has passed as a Wikipedia good article. What an immense amount of quality work and information! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, this has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article

[edit]

(this is "repeated" here for when the review is no longer transcluded)

Congratulations, this has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article. What an immense amount of excellent work and information! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC) GA Reviewer.[reply]

Many thanks for undertaking this review. Much appreciated.--SabreBD (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scotland_in_the_early_modern_period&oldid=1257216049"