User:Karlinghater

I was born in 1999. Currently I am going to school to get a degree in computer science. That is what I hope to do for my future. In my free time i read or play games. I love to browse Wikipedia for quick information about certain subjects.

Wikipedia interest me because it has a lot of information easily available. With Wikipedia i hope to help create and improve articles specifically about medieval Europe.

Article Critique

l visited the Treaty of Verdun page on Wikipedia, and found three aspects of it worth commenting on: the lack of citation, irrelevant sections, and missing information about it.

Citations

Very few facts are cited in this page. There are a total of 4 sources on this page and unfortunately they are not cited enough on the page itself. Only one section has more than 2 citations the others only have 1. The sections are also not small enough to have that few citations. Almost all the information on this page does not have a reference to see where it is obtained from. Easy citations to obtain to easily improve the article would be those about the distribution of land. There are bound to be plenty of reliable sources on when which king got what title.

Irrelevant Sections

In the legacy section of this article it describes how the middle kingdom (Lotharingia) was split and what became of it. It describes how it was traded between France in Germany in the 18th century and till World War 2. It is hard to believe that this treaty is the cause for those countries claim on that territory so far in the future. Especially after the Carolingian dynasty lost control of that region. There is more than likely a different treaty or different circumstances that caused it.

Missing information

The Franks had a unique system of inheritance one not expected of European rules. Rulers would divide up their realm and give each of their sons a part of it. This page says how the outcome of the Treaty of Verdun influenced European inheritance, but there is no section saying how. This would be one one of the most important pieces of information to include yet it is missing. This information would greatly benefit the article and show its importance.

Summary

It is a good article but could be a lot better. As the article currently is it leaves out some very important information out and needs more sources to validate its claims. Currently information obtained from there would be hard to trust. Once it has some new sources and information the article would be in a good spot on Wikipedia.