Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Scotland/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2018.

History of Scotland

 * Nominator(s): Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 01:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

This former featured article is about the History of Scotland. It was de-featured in 2006 due to no longer meating FA criteria, but has since been expanded and improved massively. It's just passed GA review, and, as far as I'm concerned, ought to pass the FA criteria with flying colours, too! Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 01:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment (note to self)
Suggestions from peer reviewer – will look at shortly, some of these instantly seem not applicable. Also check User:AndyZ/Suggestions. --Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 03:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
 * Lead length is consistent with other articles like it, such as the featured History of Poland (1945–1989)
 * The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
 * If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
 * You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 000 pounds, use 000 pounds, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 000&amp;nbsp;pounds.[?]
 * Per Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called  ==The Biography== , it should be changed to  ==Biography== .[?]
 * Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Summary style.[?]
 * Have added TOC limit of 3 which helps slightly, though I accept the TOC is still very long. Sections are pretty ideal as is, though, especially given the myriad "Main article" indicators.
 * Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), armor (A) (British: armour), behaviour (B) (American: behavior), neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), favourite (B) (American: favorite), recognize (A) (British: recognise), recognise (B) (American: recognize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), programme (B) (American: program ), skeptic (A) (British: sceptic).
 * Fixed.
 * Please note the spelling convention for the article is specifically Scottish English, which retains the k in skeptic, so this will continue to flag.
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
 * I have scanned the article for grammatical, orthographic, style and tone issues and can't find anything, but this obviously needs checked over.
 * I have scanned the article for grammatical, orthographic, style and tone issues and can't find anything, but this obviously needs checked over.
 * Not sure about this, I'm afraid. The nominator has—pace—15 edits to the article, and is not in the top-ten of contributors; regarding the GA review, since this is an article of over 17K words and 200,000 bytes, it shuold probably have received a slightly more indepth review than it did (involving two comments from the reviewer), by a reviewer who has ~2 months tenure., what say you? —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 16:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is true, however the main requirement is that the nominator be familiar with the subject matter and the sources used. I'm currently studying for an MA in Gaelic Studies and Theology, and am intimately familiar with a large portion of the sources the article uses. There simply isn't much room for expansion in the article, which is why I haven't been able to contribute much to it thus far.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 15:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The requirements are interconnected and not dependent on real life qualifications: the reason one is expected to have been a major contributor to the article is that that tangibly demonstrates a familiarity with the topic and its source material. Otherwise, one may as well be a dog.  —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 15:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if I were a dog, this would quickly become apparent in my inability to respond to substantive issues during the review process. The fact that you have no particular reason to believe that I am familiar with the topic and sources does not mean you ought to assume the negative; that would quite blatantly fly in the face of AGF. If I am not well-versed enough in the history of Scotland to nominate this article, then this will become apparent during the review, and it will fail. To insist that the review not even go ahead just in case is, frankly, absurd.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 15:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It most certainly would not be an assumption of bad faith to suggest that no evidence exists to suggest that an article at FAC may not actually be ready for FAC. For your current purposes, our peer review process is generally robust; I suggest you utilise it. There is, after all no deadline.  —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 16:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but that isn't your suggestion. You have made no substantive criticisms of the article itself, only its nominator. Whether or not an article is ready for FAC is up to the article, not the nominator. Whether or not I am a suitable nominator cannot be positively ascertained before I actually engage with the review process, so it is nonsense to suggest that because I might not be, I ought not to even be given the chance to engage with this process.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 16:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments
A few initial comments from a quick read-through for formatting, spelling etc. More detailed comments may follow, although I shall hold off on that until SerialNumber54129's important point, above, is answered. Further comments to come, after a more thorough perusal, subject to the clarification of SerialNumber54129's key question. –  Tim riley  talk   21:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * A seven-paragraph, 670-word lead is on the gargantuan side. The Manual of Style recommends "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs".
 * The fourth paragraph is rather full of "would"s which would be better as plain past tenses.
 * Pre-history
 * Lower case for BC won't do. Likewise AD later. The MoS stipulates the normal BC and AD (or BCE and CE if preferred).
 * "pre-ice age axes" – hyphenation problems: a second hyphen is needed here.
 * Protestant Reformation
 * Something has gone awry with the punctuation and spacing.
 * Enlightenment
 * "Historian Jonathan Israel" – clunky false title – fine for a tabloid paper, but inappropriate here. There are other examples in the text.
 * Thanks! To address these:
 * I've condensed the lead to 540 words in 5 paragraphs. This is now shorter than the lead of History of Poland (1945–1989) (575 words in 5 paragraphs) and is, imho, the shortest it can feasibly be without having to abandon any hope of being an adequately descriptive summary.
 * BC and AD have been fixed, I have also taken out the unsightly small caps, I can't believe I didn't notice that while scanning.
 * Axes fixed through proper capitalisation. I don't think unhyphenated proper nouns get hyphenated when confronted with a prefix.
 * I'm not sure I understand what you mean regarding the punctuation and spacing in Protestant Reformation. There was one instance of double spacing, which I have now corrected, but I feel like that can't have been what you were referring to.
 * Nothing wrong with "false titles", they are in use across the encyclopaedia (see historian Bruce Catton, researchers named John, and sociologists named James). I find myself agreeing with Merriam-Webster's view that they are useful as concise identifiers, and would thus reject the notion that they are "clunky" or should be removed, but that's up to consensus.
 * --Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 15:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose
The referencing is far short of FA standard (I'm surprised it got by at GAN): publishers, locations, dates, ISBNs/OCLCs missing, inconsistent ULC, some names as Surname, Forename and others as Forename Surname, some books in the References (e.g. McLaren) rather than in the Bibliography - an unprofessional mess. If it can be cleared up, the article might be worth re-submitting, as, at first glance, its content seems good and the prose adequate. When attending to the overhaul of the references it is of particular importance (with WP:V in mind) to distinguish between sources referred to and the other items in the current bibliography, which could be omitted or moved to "Further reading".  Tim riley  talk   19:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Another Oppose Have the two main editors (Sabre and rjensen) been consulted, as the rules require in such circumstances? Generally, rather a bumper feast o'facts, but short on analysis, tricky though this is with such a large subject. Apparently not even a see also for visual art, despite an unusually good series of period articles. Even by WP standards, far too little on economic matters.  Does the photo of solid (probably) Victorian buildings captioned "Crofts at Borreraig on the island of Skye" really illustrate the "Collapse of the clan system" effectively?  And so on. Also taking the comments above, pretty clearly not ready yet; the GA review was clearly even more cursory than usual. Needs a good deal of polishing in my view. Johnbod (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Coord note
Thanks everyone. Although the FAC instructions are clear that nominators should be major contributors to the article or to have consulted with same, there is wriggle room and I wanted to see some more commentary before looking at early closure. Those comments reinforce SN's suggestion that a formal Peer Review is appropriate before FAC (as it would be in most cases anyway) so I'm going to archive this and recommend PR as the next step; per FAC instructions, the article can be re-nominated after a minimum of two weeks has passed since the date of archiving. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.