Talk:Architecture of Scotland in the Middle Ages/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 19:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Nominator: Sabrebd

I will carefully read this article, and will begin this review shortly. – Quadell (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking this on.--  SabreBD  (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * My first impression is that this is a very strong, well-sourced article. But it feels like it drops you right into the middle of it, without an adequate introduction. This article would benefit from a brief section that says something like "The architecture of Scotland in the Roman era consisted of [...] and ended with the departure of the Romans in fifth century." It could quickly summarize the time period involved and what led up to it. There's plenty of information in the Architecture of Scotland article, which I see you're quite familiar with. [[Image:Face-smile-big.svg|22px]] Compare the presence of "Background" sections in the GAs Architecture of the medieval cathedrals of England, Fatimid architecture, and Romania in the Early Middle Ages. (That last also has an attractive "Aftermath" section, which could also be a good idea, explaining briefly how Middle-Ages architecture led to early modern architecture in Scotland.)
 * ✅--  SabreBD  (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The lead is good. But if a background section is added, the lead's first paragraph will have to be expanded slightly to incorporate a summary of that section.
 * ✅--  SabreBD  (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * In "Vernacular buildings", I'm not familiar with some of the roofing terms, such as "broom", "heather", and "turfs". Are there articles you can link to for further information? I don't think that by "turf" you're referring to Turf roof, are you? Does "broom" refer to Broom (shrub)? Which heather do you mean? Etc. Other links throughout the article would be helpful for lay-readers: palisade, Burgess (title), Wattle (construction), places like Aberdeen and Perth, Scotland, etc. etc. Additionally, David I and Robert I should be linked, and James IV should be linked at the first mention, not the second.
 * ✅--  SabreBD  (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I tried to fix minor grammar changes (mostly involving comma placement) wherever I found them in the article, but some sentences will require a more thorough rewording. Many very long sentences could use to be broken up, have comma placement issues, and/or have grammatical structures which are either flatly incorrect or which make the sentence very difficult for the reader to follow. Consider, for example, the sentence: "They were typically surrounded by a palisade or had a castle and usually had a market place, with a widened high street or junction, often marked by a mercat cross, beside houses for the nobles, burgesses and other significant inhabitants, which were often built in a relatively elaborate style and by the end of the period some would had slate roofs or tiles." This should probably be at least three sentences, and needs to be modified for clarity and grammar. Or consider: "At the same time there was increasing influences from English and continental European designs, such as the Romanesque chevron pattern detailing on the piers in the nave of Dunfermline Abbey (1130–40), which were modelled on details from Durham Cathedral, and the St Magnus Cathedral in Orkney, begun in 1137, may have employed masons that had worked at Durham." The length and grammatical choices make this very hard to follow. Someone needs to go through and perform a thorough copy-edit of all sections of the article.
 * ✅--  SabreBD  (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "the East-end of Elgin Cathedral". Do you mean the east side? Anyway, it should not be capitalized.
 * ✅ There are no east sides to cathedrals.--  SabreBD  (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The caption's claim "considered one of the finest Gothic buildings in Scotland" is an opinion and needs to be sourced or modified.
 * ✅ It was sourced in the text, but I took it out anyway.--  SabreBD  (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * In the second paragraph of "Vernacular buildings", the first two sentences discuss burghs. The next two sentences discuss the urban poor - do these refer just to the poor in burghs, or in other towns as well? The last sentence discusses buildings in Aberdeen and Perth, but I'm not sure if we're still talking about buildings for the urban poor, buildings in burghs, both, or neither. This should be reworded for clarity and perhaps reorganized, depending on the answers.
 * Burghs are towns. The first paragraph is about rural settlement, the second about urban. Not really sure how to make that clearer.--  SabreBD  (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah! I see how it pulls together now. May I suggest this change to make the flow clearer to the lay-reader? The first paragraph could begin with "...made use of local materials and styles, especially in rural environments" (assuming that's true), which would help the reader understand we're talking about rural settlements. The second paragraph could start with an introductory sentence like "In urban settings, settlements were quite different" (or whatever introductory sentence would be most accurate). I believe this would make the rest of the material in this section more comprehensible. – Quadell (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Resolved along these lines I think. Hopefully this is clear now.--  SabreBD  (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The lead section has been expanded to include material from the "background" section, which is good. But the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction; the lead now contains far more material from the brief "background" section than any other section of the article. It needs to be reduced, for reasons of balance. In my opinion, everything between "The first surviving houses in Scotland" and "at Dunadd and Dumbarton" should be replaced with a single sentence (or two). I would say something like "After the departure of the Romans in the third century, new forms of construction emerged throughout Scotland that would come to define the landscape." and be done with it. (Of course, you could probably put it better than I could.) But currently, the lead devotes far too much space to background.
 * I have cut this down and swapped in what is probably the more important fact about the abandonment and reoccupation of forts.--  SabreBD  (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for future improvement

 * The "Notes" section often repeats the full bibliographic reference in several footnotes. It would be better to place books in a separate "Bibliography" section, alphabetized, with an abbreviated reference to the work and page numbers in the Notes section. See, for instance, the References and Bibliography sections of Adam Eckfeldt or John Sherman.
 * Is this a good article requirement or just a suggestion for the future?
 * It's a suggestion for the future (or present, if you are so inclined), but it is not a GA requirement. I'm also willing to do this myself (if you agree that it would be an improvement, but don't feel like doing it yourself). – Quadell (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It would be an improvement to have some sort of tie-things-together sentence at the end of "Background" that introduces the rest of the article, saying that new forms of vernacular buildings, churches, and defensive fortifications sprung up, and giving a hint of how important the changes were. In fact, this might be the same sentence used in the lead section to sum up the background section information.


 * I will probably myself before going to FA if that is OK.--  SabreBD  (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review List
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * All issues resolved.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * All issues resolved.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * A suggestion for improvement is noted above.
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * All issues resolved.
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This satisfies all the GA criteria, and I'm happy to promote this article to GA status. – Quadell (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This satisfies all the GA criteria, and I'm happy to promote this article to GA status. – Quadell (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This satisfies all the GA criteria, and I'm happy to promote this article to GA status. – Quadell (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)