Jump to content

Talk:Scotland in the Late Middle Ages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleScotland in the Late Middle Ages has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 22, 2011Good article nomineeListed

Expansion

[edit]

This page was previously deleted because the material used violated copyright. As this is such an important period in Scottish history I have re-created it with a cleaned up text from the main History of Scotland article. I then posted the same text there, as it was better than what had previously been used. The notional plan is to expand this article and keep that text as a summary of this. So if anyone can help expand this with reliable sources, or sees where expansion might be achieved, please contribute.--SabreBD (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 13:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status and should have a full review up later today. Dana boomer (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for taking this on. I am the major contributor and guilty party, so it will probably be me responding to any changes. I should point out that I am the sort of editor who is very happy to get advice and criticism beyond the requirements of a GA, should time permit.--SabreBD (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    • I have made a few copyedits - feel free to revert if you aren't satisfied.
    Those are all fine and very helpful. None of them change any meanings.--SabreBD (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it "Scotland in the Late Middle Ages" (title) or "Scotland in the late Middle Ages" (first sentence)?
     Done You have spotted my hesitation. On Wikipedia the Late (Early or High) is usually capitalised and I followed that when I created the article, but in most reliable sources only the Middle Ages is usually capitalised. I don't much fancy trying to get this changed on countless articles, so I guess we will go with the Wikipedia convention.--SabreBD (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Early in the article (probably in the first sentence) you should establish the time frame covered by this article, for people not familiar with the delineations of early historians. So, "Scotland in the late Middle Ages (1286-1513)..." or whatever you determine the time frame to be.
     Done --SabreBD (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • John I, "but probably resigned as Guardian of Scotland." We don't know for sure? What happened to de Moray while Wallace was ruling?
    No we don't know for sure if that happened. Our knowledge of events in Scotland in this period is roughly the same as England about 300 years before. I will check on de Moray.--SabreBD (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Moray died after the battle. I also changed the spelling of his name to fit with Wallace and his grandson.--SabreBD (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Robert I, "grandson of the claimant," What claimant?
    Robert Bruce of Annandale, mentioned in the opening paragraph of the subsection of John I. Since this evidently isn't as clear as I assumed perhaps a different form of words can be adopted. Open to suggestions.--SabreBD (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this is definitely not clear. Perhaps "grandson of claimant Robert Bruce"? Dana boomer (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Done I went for that but with the title as it sounded less repetitive.--SabreBD (talk) 10:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • David II, "David was released for a ransom of 100,000 marks in 1357, but he was unable to pay," They released him before they had the money?
    Yep, that was normal. Other hostages were left. It may be possible to clarify this if necessary.--SabreBD (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to clarify, it's perfectly clear - just a little startling! Dana boomer (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • David II, the image in the section is of David acknowledging Edward as his feudal lord, yet the section mentions nothing about this acknowledgement.
    I have added it in, but need to check that the source covers this.--SabreBD (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Done This proved a tricky one. It is clear that David never paid homage to Edward and, although the original (quality online) source says that is what is happening in this picture, this is not how homage is paid, so I have made the matter clear in the text and adopted neutral language in the caption. Hopefully that resolves that one.--SabreBD (talk) 06:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • James II, "which saw the summary execution of the young William Douglas, 6th Earl of Douglas and his brother." Why?
    Well the truth is no one knows. Its horribly complicated and we do not have that much evidence. An explanation could be disproportionately long. Do we need more on this or is this sufficient?--SabreBD (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that a bit more information is needed here - otherwise it's a long jump from the fifth earl dying to the sixth one being beheaded. William Douglas, 6th Earl of Douglas says that their death came from a conspiracy to "break the power of the late Archibald Douglas's family", which culminated in them being "summarily beheaded on trumped up charges", and thus allowing the Earl of Avondale to profit. Even just this little bit of information would help readers to understand why the two sons of one of the leading men in Scotland were killed. Dana boomer (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Done I added a bit more detail, hopefully the situation is a bit clearer to the reader now.--SabreBD (talk) 10:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • James II, "and their forces were finally defeated" Whose forces? (I'm fairly sure you mean the Douglases, but this is really unclear in context).
     Done Yes the Douglases. I have made this explicit.--SabreBD (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • James III, "and possibly given to a royal favourite, Robert Cochrane." We don't know for sure?
    No, yet again I am afraid we are not sure. This is one possible explanation of resentment, so is a bit hard to keep out.--SabreBD (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • James III, "he debased the coinage," How/why?
    By reducing the amount of silver in a coin in order to make (more) money. Detail is given in the economics section. Do we need it here as well for clarity?--SabreBD (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • James IV, "to hold justice ayres." What are justice ayres? I know ayres is linked, but from that article, it looks like they are geographical divisions, while the context of this sentence makes them sound like an event.
     Done That link is of no use. They are an event - a mobile court in a defined circuit. Unfortunately (as is often the case) the articles on Wikipedia tend to assume anything legal just happened in England. I have clarified and found the best link I can (another job for when I can find the time is to create articles for these things).--SabreBD (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • James IV, "The Flooers o' the Forest" Is this title correct, or is there a typo?
     Done Its the Scots title, although usually written with another apostrophe (which I have fixed). In that sense it is the "correct" title.--SabreBD (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, good. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't a typo. Dana boomer (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lead says "a population of perhaps a million by the middle of the 14th century", Demography says "probably less than a million at its height". Perhaps a million or less than a million?
     Done I clarified this one. Trying to indicate it was a bit under 1M and then fell.--SabreBD (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Demography, "Compared with after the later clearances". Awkward wording...
     Done Clarified that one (hopefully).--SabreBD (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Social structure, "able to attend the Estates as of right." What does this mean?
    A lord of a certain level can automatically go to parliament. At a lower level they might go because they were nominated in some other way (like representing a burgh). Not quite sure how to make that clearer, so need to think about this one.--SabreBD (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps "the lowest level of the nobility with the rank-given right to attend the Estates."? Dana boomer (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Done OK I substituted that.--SabreBD (talk) 10:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Social conflict, "relatively little agricultural improvement that could create widespread resentment" I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
     Done Clarified. Improvement is a loaded term I suppose - not an improvement if you are poor.--SabreBD (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Popular practice, "but with relatively poor livings" What is a living?
     Done A post taken by a priest that produced a certain amount of money. I have put in a link to benefice (again, sadly, largely an English based article), not sure if this term was used in Scotland - living definitely was.--SabreBD (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Popular practice, "a number of burnings" Burnings of what? People? Vestments? Books? Churches?
     Done People - clarified.--SabreBD (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Language and literature, "the first complete surviving work includes John Ireland's The Meroure of Wyssdome" Includes or is?
     Done Work was plural in this case - I clarified.--SabreBD (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • I think that it would make the Notes section less crowded and repetitive to use split references (short format with author, possibly title and page information for the notes, full information given once in a separate section) for books that you use multiple times. However, the way it is currently done is thoroughly MOS-compliant, so it doesn't have to be changed.
    I will probably think about that one. I am not a fan of the short title system as it makes using sections as summaries very difficult, but I will look at how much space it will save.--SabreBD (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you mean by "as it makes using sections as summaries very difficult"? Examples of what I'm discussing can be found in the Citations/References sections of William Warelwast and Theobald of Bec. Dana boomer (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A few spotchecks of sources revealed no concerns with copyvio.
    • James III, end of first paragraph needs a source, starting at "His foreign policy included a rapprochement with England,...", especially with regards to the policy being unpopular.
     Done Added one.--SabreBD (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
     Done I will add some details to the image info.--SabreBD (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Good. I made the sourcing a little more obvious (I put it in the image info template), but otherwise nice.
    • File:The Old Tolbooth.jpg needs more information. The source link should if possible link directly to the image page. If that's not possible, directions should be given on how to get to the image page. If this is a reprinting of something (from a book? an engraving?) it should be noted, along with approximate date, author if known, etc.
    These are just details I don't know. I didn't upload that image to the commons. So not sure if I can resolve that one.--SabreBD (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, is this image not on the commons?--SabreBD (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this image isn't on Commons, it's hosted on en.wp. However, it still needs the information, or it doesn't meet the image criteria for GA. The information either needs to be found and added or the image removed from the article. Dana boomer (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have initiated a move of this image to the commons, where it can have proper details (this may take a while).--SabreBD (talk) 10:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Where the image is located has nothing to do with its sourcing - it still needs the details on where on the website it's located, where it was first published (if we're claiming free-use by first date of publication) or author (if we're claiming free-use by date of author's death). This information needs to be added to the image, whether it is located on commons or en.wp. Dana boomer (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Its location does meant that it will (hopefully) be in the right place. I have attempted a move and added the details I can gather here [1]. If that fails for some reason I will just add the details to the Wikipedia version. Hopefully an admin will be able to delete the Wikipedia file soon.--SabreBD (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The old one had been deleted, so the process is complete.--SabreBD (talk) 08:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

If you plan to take this to FAC the prose/punctuation could use a good scrubbing. I'm definitely not an expert in these matters, and so although I caught a few things, I'm sure I missed many more :) Overall it's a nice article, but could use a bit more polish before FAC. This has obviously been a huge effort, and it is well done - I enjoyed learning more about this era in Scottish history. Once the above issues are taken care of, I think the article should be good to go for GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good so far. I've struck many of my comments and added replies the the rest. Dana boomer (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've had another look through the article and everything appears to be in good shape, so I'm now passing the article to GA status. Very nice work, and thank you for your prompt responses to all of my comments! Dana boomer (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for a thorough, quick and very helpful review.--SabreBD (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Wallace treason ?

[edit]

"In 1305 he [William Wallace] fell into the hands of the English, who executed him for treason despite the fact that he owed no allegiance to England"

Earlier it seems to say that the English king Edward I arbitrated the Scottish succession in return for Scotland accepting the overlordship of the English crown. In which case WW was under feudal duty to Edward and thus his uprising was treason. Is this wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.213.8 (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:England in the Late Middle Ages which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scotland_in_the_Late_Middle_Ages&oldid=1259659868"