Talk:Eglinton Tournament/GA1

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

Currently under review. Comments to follow. Gwinva (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I am placing this article on hold, since there is quite a bit of work which needs to be done before reaching GA standard.
 * General GA Criteria:


 * It is neutral;
 * ✅ Neutral tone maintained throughout


 * It is '''stable
 * ✅ No edit warring, or content dispute; no major rewriting of content


 * It is illustrated, where possible, by images'''
 * [[Image:X mark.svg|15px]]
 * There are far too many images. WP is not a repository for media files.  Images should be used to illustrate points in the text.  Choose a few appropriate ones, place in relevant section and provide captions to explain significance to article. (See MOS:IMAGES) I suggest moving all files with appropriate liecensing to commons, create category and provide a link from here.  NB. I have not checked licenses (too many for me to go through), but note that no article can pass GA if it contains images which fail the image use policy.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * [[Image:X mark.svg|15px]] No.
 * Most significantly, it does not describe the jousting, melee or other tournament activities. A reader is left without any understanding of what took place.
 * While claiming this is a reenactment of medieval jousts or tournaments (which?? They are not synonymous terms. See Hastilude, for a start), no context is provided for this.  What were they trying to reenact?  What aspects did they choose?  What sources did they consult?  Did they base it on actual events or customs, or was it made up?


 * It is well written
 * [[Image:X mark.svg|15px]] This is the area of greatest concern. Prose is not outstanding, and could be improved; subjects jump around, are not always ordered appropriately or relate to headings. (User:Tony1 has written a good how-to guide on prose matters.)
 * Lead: is quite short for article of this size, and does not "summarise the most important points covered in [the] article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." See WP:LEAD.
 * Fails WP:MOS in many aspects: needs a good copyedit for punctuation and formatting. (If you need help with this, ask at the Guild of Copy editors.) Note that tags should follow punctuation marks.   Newspapers should be in italics, not quotation marks (The Times, not "The Times")
 * References are a mess. They should be listed by author's surname, titles in italics, publishers details given, and ISBN if available (this aids anyone who wishes to consult these works).  Dates should go next to author, or at end; don't mix styles.  Page numbers should be pp. 6–7 (n-dash) not 6/7 (and certainly don't mix styles).  Don't use "ibid": with WP editing, it's easy for cited sentences to come adrift from their orginal spot, and citations lost.  Some notes give author (good) some title (such as "The Return of King Arthur", which isn't in the ref list, so who knows what this book is) and some full citations.  Don't mix styles.  If you have a ref list then put all titles there.  Some notes contain [1] style external links: no good.  Websites need citing properly, with titles and keywords so they can be searched for or found if link goes dead, or if page is printed.  (same applies for the external link section). Some references are just links in text: footnote and cite properly.
 * Some of the notes contain text notes (rather than just references) followed by a reference. Why are they here as footnotes and not in main text?  Is it relevant?  What are you citing/noting?  Are they providing supplementary information, commentary, discussion?  Is this OR?
 * This article abounds with Weasel words, Jargon and otherwise meaningless phrases. eg.  "It was a deliberate set piece of Romanticism, in the face of social progress" (I can understand the Romanticism, but what does the rest mean?) "Astronomical costs"?  How much? This needs solid grounding not vague terms (used later under accommodation as well: I can't believe that individual accommodation costs were as high as the whole tournament!).  "the tournament was symbolic of romantic defiance in the face of modern practicality" is this a direct quote? (if so, cite it properly; if not, put in plain English)
 * Includes some unfounded or strange conclusions, bordering on OR.  "largely remembered for being rained out" (really? even now? More than anything else?). The statement "Medieval culture was widely admired as an antidote to the modern enlightenment and industrial age." is ref'd with "This is pretty much the entire thesis of Girouard's book." No good: such a commentary on Girouard's book is OR; it certainly can't stand as a citation. "It does not seem to have occurred to Lord Eglinton that other newspapers": says who? Is this OR?
 * The "Background" section touches on the romanticism of the time, but does not connect the issue to Eglinton. The connection must be made, otherwise it's irrelevant (or WP:SYNTHESIS). (I'm left wondering what Walpole's novels and Strawberry Hill, let alone Freidrich and Austen - seemingly selected at random - have to do with this joust).  Even the Percy link could do with a stronger connection.  Was it the cause/inspiration of the joust?  Or was the matter remembered and brought to add spice?
 * "Early Victorian disappointments" What??? Did the lack of ceremony at the coronation influence the tournament or not?  Where did Eglinton get the idea from?  Were the rumours true, or did they inspire him?  How is this a disappointment?  Why is his personal history recorded here?  (And, as a MOS issue, don't mix the "Montgomerie" and "Eglinton" names.  Montgomerie might be surname, but he's "Lord Eglinton", so use "Eglinton" throughout.)
 * What's the difference between "Preparation" and "Planning"? Seems these sections overlap in scope
 * Watch terminology. They're "harnesses" not "suits".  Was the armour a "forgery" (ie passing itself off as authentic) or reproduction?  Note that reproduction mistaken for authentic is not forgery.  (Side note: "on display in 1963" only then?  From then?  Until then?  Where is it now?  Was that when it was discovered to be 19th C origin?)
 * "There were some problems with the planning and location of the tournament." Yes, and? What were they? The imitation gothic house?  Or the marshy land?  What did they do about it?
 * readers "(f)rom every county in the British Isles": direct quote needs citation
 * "At the last minute" what kind of subject heading is that??? A heading should give some indication of what the section's about (even reading the section is not clear what is specific about this section: a lot of this overlaps with "The Deluge", another inappropriate title, since it discusses the parade difficulties, the jester, the tiltyard construction and the newspaper reports.
 * "Debra N. Mancoff[40] gives details" of what?
 * Participants: what's the significance of the knights' titles? Did they work as teams?  What did the other participants do?
 * "Aftermath": "After the tournament" (which we haven't heard about): covers some of the information discussed in "deluge" (re following day etc) should all be together. "It did however succeed in publicity terms." How? We only hear about it being satirised.  Was it really the inspiration for later tournaments?  Or were later ones inspired by the original medieval ones?
 * "The 1989 re-enactment" - poorly written, uncited one sentence section. Do something better with this.
 * Red links: There's nothing wrong with red links in articles, but they do raise red flags (as it were). Consider why they're red.  Misspellings or poor linkings of existing articles?  Of people/things not warranting own articles but mentioned in parent articles?  Red because the subject is not notable, and never will be notable?
 * see also: should only link things that are relevant to article but not mentioned or linked in main text
 * Categories: some don't seem appropriate: the Tournament is not an Earl.

I have made a note of the things that struck me during a first appraisal of the article. In some cases, I have only provided a few specific examples of problematic areas (eg copyediting). An article does not need to be perfect to be GA quality, but as it stands now, this article is quite some way off. That said, with a bit of application, this article could certainly be brought up to standard. Copyediting and formatting are fairly straightforward things to solve. A reorganisation of sections and content is desirable; information about the actual tournament action is ESSENTIAL. Hope these comments inspire you. Feel free to discuss any of these points with me. Gwinva (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

GA fail
This review has been open for a week, and it is my opinion that it will not reach GA status very soon. I realise a good amount of work was done by one editor to resolve some of the MOS issues, and I commend this. However, many issues I raised are still outstanding, most significantly the fact that this article does not contain any information about the tournament action itself: the nature of the jousts, how they were arranged, fought and resolved. Were they individual jousts or melees? Were they fought with real weapons? Were they choreographed? Were they round-robin, or knockout? Who won? How did the "knights" even know how to joust? Did they practise? And so on and so forth.

The GA-fail is not the end of the matter: you can renominate this article as soon as you feel it is ready for reassessment. All the best, Gwinva (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)