Talk:Treaty of Orvieto

Treaty of Orvieto was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 21, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greece Low‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece 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.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Italy Low‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy 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.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sicily Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sicily, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sicily 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.SicilyWikipedia:WikiProject SicilyTemplate:WikiProject SicilySicily articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

References[edit]

At first glance the article looks under-referenced to me. There are simply too few sources, and even though I'm not an expert on the subject I suspect some of the most important sources might be missing. I'm not gonna weigh in on the review, but I'd suggest starting with David Abulafia's (ed.) The New Cambridge Medieval History: Volume 5, c.1198-c.1300 (pp. 153-4 et passim.) It's available online at Amazon. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 15:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I'm leaving for a convention today, but I'll take a look when I get back. Even relatively specialized histories sometimes give this treaty pretty short shrift, probably because it didn't have the dynastic consequences of the Treaty of Viterbo. E.g., Riley-Smith's Crusades and Hazard's History of the Crusades v. III' (link) confine themselves to a sentence or two about how Charles brought the Venetians into the alliance. Choess (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I suspected as much. Still, it would be good to have a wider array of sources, both to ensure a balanced presentation, and to give readers an idea of where to go for further reading - if not so much on the specific subject, at least on the general period. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 20:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Failed GA[edit]

Failed "good article" nomination[edit]

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of May 21, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Fail

Lack of citations & references is probably the primary reason for failing this article. Citation density is very low, and the article is missing citations for several key statements.

3. Broad in coverage?: Fail

Although it does a relatively good job of covering the topic, I feel that many of the sections are quite short, and warrant some serious expansion.

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 00:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this fail is in error; the article doesn't fail by the quick-fail criteria, so it should have been put on hold for the editor to address the concerns. Furthermore, as User:Choess says above, he's away on some convention, so he should have been given a little time to incorporate more sources, as he's said he'd do.

I agree that there should be more citations and references. However, since the topic is rather peripheral, I'm not sure it's possible to expand the article significantly without veering off on irrelevant issues. I'd say if the sources mentioned above (Abulafia, Riley-Smith, Hazard) and maybe a couple more are incorporated, and the article gets sourced throughout, it's a GA. The editor should get a few days to do this. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 17:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]