Talk:Scottish literature in the Middle Ages

Scottish literature in the Middle Ages was nominated as a Language and literature good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (December 23, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scottish literature in the Middle Ages article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Scotland Mid‑importance

	Scotland portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Literature Mid‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature 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.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medieval Scotland High‑importance

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Celts Mid‑importance

	Scottish literature in the Middle Ages is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the ancient Celts and the modern day Celtic nations. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess.CeltsWikipedia:WikiProject CeltsTemplate:WikiProject CeltsCelts articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Scottish literature in the Middle Ages/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 00:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: Sabrebd

As usual for your nominations, Sabrebd, this is a strong candidate for GA status. I've performed a copyedit, and found just a few problems that need to be addressed.

Both the lead and "Late Middle Ages" sections end by noting that the Eneados' completion was "overshadowed by the disaster at Flodden in the same year". First off, you should link to Battle of Flodden so the reader knows what you're referring to. Second, it was only a "disaster" from one POV, so that should be reworded.

Done It is clearly a disaster from the Scottish point of view, which I think is clearly what matters here.--SabreBD (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not NPOV to call an English victory a disaster in a Wikipedia article. (The Scottish point of view is not the only one that finds Scottish literature important.) – Quadell ^(talk) 16:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done

The "High Middle Ages" section starts by saying that Viking raids "may have forced a merger", but the following sentences assume that the merger happened. Why the uncertain language? (I can't see the source.) Do we know if the crown actually merged or not? It's not clear to me what's certain and what's not.

Well it is all uncertain. There are virtually no records for this period and those few there are come from Ireland.--SabreBD (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't comfortable stating "This culminated in the rise of Cínaed mac Ailpín", since it isn't altogether clear what what is and isn't factual about that person. I attempted a rewrite to reflect this. Is my wording factually accurate? – Quadell ^(talk) 16:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "Much of their work survives in a single collection", do you mean that much of the work of Dunbar, Henryson, Kennedy, and Douglas survives in a single collection? And do you refer to the Bannatyne Manuscript, or is that separate? That could be made clearer.

Done I split this up. Hopefully clear now.--SabreBD (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really mean "the first complete surviving work includes John Ireland's The Meroure of Wyssdome", or do you mean that the first complete surviving work was John Ireland's The Meroure of Wyssdome?

Done It is I believe the first complete one.--SabreBD (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although not a clear error and not required for GA status, the sentence beginning "They often trained in bardic schools" is confusing and could use a rewrite.

Done--SabreBD (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved, thanks. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Besides these unclear bits, the article is in very good shape. All the images are in the public domain and are used appropriately. The lead adequately summarized all section of the article, and though it might slightly overemphasize the "Late Middle Ages" section, it's not a serious problem. The article seems reasonably complete and does not go on tangents. The organization is fine. I have spotchecked several of the sources and found the article's statements fully supported by the sources without plagiarism.

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
All issues have been resolved.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
One issue was never addressed.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
The article has now been on hold for 11 days, and it was originally only supposed to be on hold for 7. I'm afraid I'm going to have to fail this nomination for lack of action, since not all issues have been resolved in a timely manner. It's very close to GA status, though. If you fix the remaining issue, feel free to renominate this article for GA status, and I suspect it will pass. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 15:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]