Talk:Middle Ages/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) 19:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi there,

I'm really keen to review this article, but given its length and scope the review might take a few goes over the weekend, so unless you have any objections I'll start now, leave initial comments and then come back later if need be. Let me start by saying how impressed I am by this detailed and fescinating article on an immensely complex and potentially controversial subject - congratulations on taking it on, and congratualtions on doing such a good job. I have listed below problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Issues

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "to make the 3rd century politically unstable, with a number of emperors coming to the throne only to be replaced by new usurpers" - I think this sentence needs an addition such as "only to be rapidly replaced". done
 * "decline in the number the curial landowning class" - missing "of"? done
 * "however, the empire was not considered divided," - an odd formulation, considered by whom?
 * Clarified ... neither the inhabitants nor the rulers really considered it "divided" as we would think of it. They just broke it into zones of responsibility, basically. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "After a period of civil war, in 330 Constantine the Great" - reads awkwardly, perhaps "In 330, after a period of civil war, Constantine the Great" done
 * "In the 430s the Huns were added to the mix" - "added to the mix" is a little unencyclopedic, can you rephrase? done
 * Consistently capitalise Eastern and Western Empire. done
 * "the break was not as extensive as historians have claimed in the past." - which historians and which period of the past?
 * This is ... something that explaining and documenting would be WAAAYYY more detail than we really can go into in an overview article. Most historians from the Renaissance to the early 20th century would have felt there was a sharp break between Roman and medieval civilizations and political structures. It's almost as "common knowledge" among medievalists as "the sky is blue" is among most people. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I take your point, and won't hold up the review for it, but I think you should seriously consider rewording this in some way - at the moment it looks like weasel wording (although I believe you when you say it isn't).--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "but the conquest of North Africa sundered the connections" - is this the correct tense?
 * I believe it is, yes. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is - not sure what I was thinking there.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Consistently capitalise "Imperial".
 * I don't see any "Imperial"s in the article - they are all "imperial" according to my "find" function... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. I think what I meant there (but explained badly) was to check whether "imperial" as in "of the Empire" should be capitalised when referring to a proper noun (i.e. Holy Roman Empire or Byzantine Empire). I always thought it should be capitalised, but perhaps I am wrong (and I'm not that bothered either way). Consider this done.
 * "in the history of the Western state as we know it" - Unencyclopedic phrasing, can this be revised? removed "as we know it"
 * "from the Moslems." - is this spelling of Muslims deliberate?
 * Nope, just me reflecting my sources... a common problem I have. Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "although it was merely used as an explosive and as a weapon" - "an explosive weapon"?
 * Should have read "it was merely used as an explosive and not as a weapon." which I have corrected. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * In the "Etymology and periodization" section, perhaps there should be something discussing the grographical scope of the Middle Ages - you mention that it is a European period, but it also seems to apply to parts of the Middle East and North Africa too - can you add a few sentences claifying this and perhaps linking it chronologically with the same period in other parts of the world for comparative purposes?
 * I'd really rather leave all that sort of stuff for the periodization article itself. There is no standard definition of what is covered and what isn't covered under the term "middle ages" - the boundaries are a bit diffuse. Generally, in the early middle ages - it covers the area that had been under the control of the Roman Empire as well as the lands just outside its borders that was under Roman influence - but as you go into the high and late middle ages - most historians drop North Africa from coverage and only cover the Middle East as it pertains to the Crusades or Byzantium. It's probably best to leave things a bit amorphous here - the sources aren't specific so we shouldn't be either nor should we get dogmatic. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That article doesn't seem to split historical periods by geography and isn't in great shape, so I wouldn't rely on it too much. I won't let this point hold up what is in all other respects an excellent article, but a non-medievalist like me might expect this article cover, for example, Medieval Japan. I can see having read the article why it doesn't, but mentioning that Middle Ages is a term that only applies to Europe and its environs would be a worthwhile addition. I notice that the navboxes at the bottom both use "European Middle Ages", which implies that other ones perhaps exist.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If I can find the sources for this information, I plan on adding this sort of section to the article before pushing on for FA. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "when Roman officials mishandled the situation," without getting too specific, is there a simple way to make it clearer in what way the situation was mishandled?
 * Heh. Not really without getting into two or three sentences of explanation - basically the officials did not give the barbarians the food they were supposed to or the tools or other equipment, and then the officials sold the food/tools to the Goths on credit, forcing the Goths to go into debt and then when they were unable to repay, seizing the Goths for slaves. Among other ways of abusing their official power. I'm trying to avoid going into great detail here - the officials screwed up badly and the empire paid the price. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, never mind then.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "when western emperors fell, many of the kings who replaced them were from the same background as those military strongmen" - this isn't clear, by what mechanism did the kings replace the emperors?
 * I've rephrased a bit here - does this work better? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, good, clearer.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "including the popular assemblies that led to a direct influence of more of the free male tribal members in political society" - I don't understand exactly what this sentence is trying to say - can you clarify it?
 * Rephrased to "...including the popular assemblies which allowed free male tribal members more say in political matters." Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "but the conquest of North Africa sundered the connections" - I'd say Islamic conquest here for clarity, and also, I don't understand why the conquest of North Africa would sever communication between Eastern and Western Europe - can you explain?
 * It's probably more detail than we can get into here - much of the communications between the east and west were done on the sea, rather than on land, so the seizure of North Africa exposed sea travelers to piracy and other increased dangers, thus cutting into trade and communications. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "maritime connections" then?
 * Now "...but the conquest of North Africa sundered maritime connections between the areas." Ealdgyth - Talk 12:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "when the world did not end with the millennium" - was it expected to? Can you add a sentence or two on this somewhere (perhaps in the earlier section on philosophy and theology)?
 * It's not agreed that folks did think the world would end in 1000 - I've read many historians who think that medieval folks did NOT think that. I've removed the bit about the millenium - it was correctly sourced but was really one art historian's view - not necessairly shared by all historians. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Theatre also began . . ." Theatre as a concept is obviously much older than the 14th century and also is not an exclusively European concept. Perhaps developed might be a better term?
 * Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no mention of European exploration (i.e. Marco Polo) - I realise that the great age of European exploration came later, but is this not a topic worthy of mention?
 * I've added a paragraph - there is now a lot of controversy over Marco Polo and his influence - I've not added him in because it's not clear that his trips had much influence on later exploration, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the article does an OK job of seguing into the next period of European History (is that the Renaissance?), but perhaps a summary section that draws clearer links between the Middle Ages and what came afterwards would be helpful. Again, however, I won't allow the absence of such a section (which is just my opinion anyway) to hold up the review.
 * I plan to work on such a section before nominating this article for FA - which is the plan. I just need to get a hold of a few more books... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * In what context is the word "barbarians" used - is this a technical term here (if so, link it)?
 * It's not a technical term, but it's in common use among historians - it's not strictly speaking correct to call all of the various tribes "Germanic tribes" since we do not know if all of them were Germanic. See Migration Period where the time frame is often called the Barbarian invasions. It's quite correct and not POV to use this term in the time period. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, its just the anthropologist in me that balks at what I think of as nineteenth century terminology. If its not controversial then its no problem, although a link to barbarian (or perhaps the wikitionary entry for the word) might be appropriate.
 * I've linked to Barbarian Ealdgyth - Talk 12:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It is stable.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Its by no means essential, but whenever I use images of objects or paintings in a Museum collection in a Wikipedia article I name and link the museum in the caption - its how things are done in professional articles/books and I've always considered it polite. Up to you though, I know there is no requirement for it.
 * I prefer to keep captions as simple as possible ... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:VAMOS rather discourages this (giving the museum), & in fact it is very often, even usually, not done on the page in books, but in a separate list of image credits, or here on the image file. Johnbod (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Its a moot question with regards this GA, which I have already passed, but I have to politely take issue with you there on both points. Firstly, the page you linked to states "It can be helpful to add the owner of works to texts or captions of works referred to, but is not necessary, except for articles about the specific work", which I think encourages rather than discourages this type of addition (although as we both note, it is not essential). Secondly, although general histories do sometimes exclude this type of detail, I know a great many historical texts that do give the provenance of an artwork in their captions, and all modern texts list the provenance of the image somewhere in the publication (would you prefer we put it in footnotes?). I also consider it polite - museums and art galleries do not have to allow photography of their public domain artworks and often expend considerable resources in making them available themselves. If we give them credit, thus placing the images in their proper context and directing more people back to their collections then they will be more likely to continue making this type of material available. If we just use "their" images without giving credit then where is the incentive for them to keep making these images available?--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well maybe I need to rewrite it a bit :) The important thing, as VAMOS says, is that the museum credit is fully given, ideally with a link, on the image file, when it will be visible to anyone looking at the image at proper size. You are talking about the location - provenance is something different. Johnbod (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the provenance of our digital images rather than the artworks they represent. If you want to get technical, in a museum/gallery context "location" is the physical location of an object (i.e. the wall its hanging on or the box it is in) and "provenance" is the history of an artwork or object prior to entering the museum/gallery's collection (which in our case is anything prior to the taking of the digital image). I agree that it is essential that the image file contains the point of origin of the image, but I also feel it is both polite and professional to list them in captions and I will continue to both do so myself and advise (although never insist) others to do so too. --Jackyd101 (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In my experience people who give the museum tend to think their captioning job is then done, and indeed there is often not then room to say anything useful about the object & its relevance. Johnbod (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In my experience, a good editor will always find room. Indeed, a well placed picture may need no explanation at all. Shall we agree to disagree on this one?--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In my experience, a good editor will always find room. Indeed, a well placed picture may need no explanation at all. Shall we agree to disagree on this one?--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Quick reply
Just a quick note to let you know I'm seeing these and hope to get to them asap - hopefully today but I've got a pile of things to work on with William the Conqueror that really need to be dealt with also. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note - Don't rush, this can all wait. I'll continue the review in the meantime, but don't feel pressured to work on it until you are ready - consider the time limit on the review to be indefinite. Good luck with the Conqueror.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added some replies and a couple of new comments. If I haven't replied consider the comment dealt with (for some reason the strikethrough button is missing from my toolbar, otherwise I'd have crossed them out).--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Added the strikethroughs manually and am formally placing the article on hold, although don't feel that there is a strict time limit. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I've got most everything? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like it! Congratulations on a most excellent article on such an enormously important topic - millions of school children will soon be printing this out and handing it in all over the world! (No, seriously its a massive achievement).--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)