Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Middle Ages/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 promoted by 10:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC).

Middle Ages

 * Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 20:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC); User:Johnbod; User:Eric Corbett

Well, this has been a labor of love. I'd like to nominate the vital article Middle Ages for featured article status because after almost two years of work, I believe it meets all the requirements of that status - it's comprehensive, focused, well written and probably the best short introduction to the very large topic on the web. When I first started working on it - it looked like this. 900 some edits later it's grown a bit but it's lost a lot of junk along the way. It IS long - 14,300+ words, but it's hard to condense it much more without losing the comprehensiveness - it's a very complex topic. But it's not THAT big ... there are a good number of other FAs that exceed it's length (158,502 bytes - putting it about 28th on Featured articles/By length - below Byzantine Empire (which covers about the same time frame..)) I've had a lot of help with this - Johnbod wrote the art and architecture sections, which I would suck at, and I've had copyediting help from John and Malleus. Malleus, as usual, has gone way beyond the call of duty and I think has copyedited the whole thing three times, at least.

I present to you, one of the main historical periods, and arguably the formative one for the current world, Middle Ages. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Ealdgyth. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Driveby
 * is there any way to avoid "period is a period" in the first sentence?
 * I think there needs to be another paragraph in the lead talking of the age as a whole. There are three paras, one each for every subdivision, but what sets the Middle Ages as a whole apart from the preceding and succeeding ages? What are the common characteristics of the Age? You can include a sentence or two from the Modern image sentence as well.122.172.168.44 (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There isn't really a "common" theme to the entire period though. We're talking over a thousand years of history - you can't even say it's feudalism or manorialism, as they really aren't throughout the period. You can't say it's "depopulation" because the high middle ages are marked by rising pops. You can't say it's rising pops, because the later middle ages are a period of falling pops. You can't say it's a period of invasions, because that's not the case in the later period. You can't say it's a period of little learning, because parts are marked by lots of learning. You can't say it's the rise of centralized government, because the early period is marked by the distentigration of governments. There are actually four paras - if there had been some uniting characteristic I'd have included it in the first paragraph. FOr that matter, I don't think you could summarize Ancient history or Modern history that way either. The "Defining characteristic" of the entire period is that it's between two other periods. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ealdgyth, isn't explaining that there in fact aren't any "common characteristics of the Age" due to, as you say, the term being used to refer to a substantial period of history, just as valid as saying there are? I'm sure it's a common misconception that when people think of The Middle Ages, they think x, y, and z. I think it would be very useful to explain in the article what you've explained above - why the term is probably not so useful as it is so vague.--Coin945 (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, but that's OR ... it's my distillation from not only studying but also years of reading the subject. The question that was asked isn't one that is asked and answered by historians, so I can't insert it into the article because there are no sources for it beyond my opinion. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As for the other - we could use "era" if you like, but I'm not totally adverse to doubling the phrasing like that. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've recast the "period ... period" thingie, see what you think. Malleus Fatuorum 04:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But I think some thing from Modern misconceptions should be there. That first sentence, for example, is an excellent encapsulation of what people think.
 * Couple more things:
 * Can we shorten that to "The period is subdivided into the Early, the High, and the Late Middle Ages."?
 * Why are the one-paragraph summaries of the three Ages in the lead so differently sized? Did the Late MA cover a shorter period than the other two?122.172.170.48 (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the Early MA was 450-1000 (550 years), the High was 1000-1300 (300 years), and the Late was 1300-1500 (200 years). Those are rough approximations, yes. It's more dictated by the length of the body text on each. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments from P. S. Burton A very impressive article. You have really tackled a vital subject for the encyclopaedia. So far, I have only one comment. There appears to be some inconsistency in how the locations are given for the works cited. For example, some entries gives the location as "Oxford, UK" while others just says "London" without the "UK". P. S. Burton  (talk)  21:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to dump all the locations, but I'll leave that decision to Ealdgyth. 21:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I generally use the "UK" or state when the location is not blindingly obvious - thus I leave off "NY" from "New York" and "UK" from London, but otherwise, I generally give the information. Same deal as with Wikipedia articles - We have London not London, United Kingdom, and New York not New York, New York. (although I'm sure there are redirects... ) And I did enough academic publishing that it's ingrained in me to give locations. It's also handy to judge reliablity of sources - if you run across something published in Pocatello, Idaho and it's not related to horses, you need to investigate that source a bit better... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. P. S. Burton  (talk)  22:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There also appears to be some inconsistency between the use of "XXth century" and "XXth-century". Especially in image captions. P. S. Burton  (talk)  22:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not the slightest idea which is correct ... Malleus??? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is correct, because there are two different uses; as an adjective—"an 11th-century vase"—and as a simple noun "vase from the 11th century". MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Manual of Style/Dates and numbers at WP:CENTURY does not actually deal with this, though someone who thinks it does is busy removing all hyphens from articles. I don't have strong views but no longer use them myself; there may be inconsistency in the article? Johnbod (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, there isn't. The article is perfectly consistent. Malleus Fatuorum 04:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Elsewhere on that page: "Centuries are given in figures or words using adjectival hyphenation where appropriate: the 5th century BCE; nineteenth-century painting."122.172.168.44 (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Please check capitalisation of compass points. I am not sure whether the current mixture of "Western Europe" and "western Europe" is correct. P. S. Burton  (talk)  18:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ARGH. I whacked on those for ages... looking again. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I got them all. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not a native speaker myself, but what about "Slavic peoples settled in central and eastern Europe", "In eastern Europe, Byzantium had revived its fortunes" and "Mongols first shattered the Kievan Rus' principalities and then invaded eastern Europe"? Should any of these also be changed? P. S. Burton  (talk)  22:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Got those, thanks for catching those! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I also think that you should double-check the capitalisation of "emperor" and "king" per WP:JOBTITLES. P. S. Burton  (talk)  13:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ran through and got all I could see. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Support: Considering the scope and size of the article, there will always be points of contention about what to dis/include, how much attention to give certain subject etc. Considering all this, the article does a fine job of representing a significant epoch in European history. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Comments from MasterOfHisOwnDomain My hat off to everyone who has contributed to such a fine and worthy article. A real achievement. But a few things:
 * Comments archived to talk page with this diff Ealdgyth - Talk 01:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Low-impact driveby comment by Curly Turkey

You know, you wouldn't need to have all those nowraps transcluded if you used &amp;nbsp;. You seem to be using it only to keep the enumerated part of kings' etc. names, like "Emperor Thumbuphisbum XIV". Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A single nowrap requires fewer characters than two &amp;nbsp;'s. But yeah, it's pointless for strings with a single space. Praemonitus (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Commments Support (User:Hchc2009)
 * Comments moved to talk page with this diff Ealdgyth - Talk 01:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's about it from me - cracking article! Hchc2009 (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Images and captions are now fine (comments moved to talk). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment - maps. The Carolingian division maps in "Breakup of the Carolingian Empire" have an error:
 * The map of 870 (after Meerssen) shows Louis II in grey in Germany and Louis the German in yellow in Italy. The two realms and rulers are mixed up - Louis II (in grey) was still in Italy after 870 and Louis the German (in yellow) in Germany.
 * A minor suggestion, but i would color the Carolingian Italian realm (and not Lotharingia) in the second and third map in dark violet similar to Middle Francia in the first map. Emperor Louis II was the eldest son and inherited Italy and the prestigious title of Emperor (and Lotharingia quickly lost any independent power after the division). GermanJoe (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have the software to do such changes ... can you suggest someone to help out with this? I'm a photographer, not a graphic designer (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 21:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I and User:P. S. Burton changed them (source: Timothy Reuter, "Germany in the Early Middle Ages"). Please check, if all is OK (need to refresh browser cache). GermanJoe (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

One note I corrected a few American spellings in this a Euro-centric article. Might want to check and make sure spelling is consistent. LittleJerry (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I found the following variations (Centralised, recognised, canonised, organized, emphasized, centralized, criticized, colonized, reorganized, specialized, mobilized and specialized). But perhaps the article uses Oxford spelling. P. S. Burton  (talk)  23:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that British English also uses -ized often. So I reverted my changes. LittleJerry (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * On another note: Not a big deal but shouldn't the lead image be of something that the readers will instantly recognize as medieval, like a castle or knight's armor? LittleJerry (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * See the lengthy discussion on the talk page. Some people expect an image essentially from the last 150 years of this 1,000 yr + period, but the discussion supports this choice. Johnbod (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro1: I've read down to "Church and monasticism" so far. It's looking like something of a masterpiece to me at the moment. I can't fault it for content, and my comments are minor prose ones. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Archived comments to talk page with this diff Ealdgyth - Talk 01:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Support: Having read to the end, I am happy to support. This is an outstanding piece of work, and a credit to all those involved. Aside from a few minor quibbles, I had and have no issues. I'm pretty familiar with the first two thirds of this period, and just a little less so with the third and I think it covers the whole period in impressive depth and thoroughness. The prose is top-notch. Great stuff. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Support (Wehwalt) Excellent and comprehensive, a huge undertaking done well. This is not a field in which I am that knowledgeable beyond the basics, so most of this will be prose and formatting issues. A few quibbles, as you might expect me to do:
 * archived resolved comments to talk page with this diff Ealdgyth - Talk 01:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

PedroPVZ
 * I respect the impressive work done here, really impressed actually. I think Portugal is consistently overlooked in the article, or arbitrarily placed in Spain, that redirects to the modern country. Also I still fail to see why the lead pic is the lead picture. So sentences also sound a bit POV especially in Modern misconceptions.


 * "The basic Frankish silver coin was the denarius or denier, while the Anglo-Saxon version was called a penny. From these areas, the denier or penny spread throughout Europe during the centuries from 700 to 1000." dont know if it is true, I've doubts, but which countries use the Anglo-saxon penny?
 * The Germans etc used the pfennig, and there was the Swedish penning, but I'm not sure how much these drew from Anglo-Saxon rather than Carolingian example. Johnbod (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The Muslims didnt controlled all the Iberian Peninsula. Their legacy in Northern Portugal and Galicia is not a proved fact. In fact, it has been consistently disproved.---Pedro (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It says "By 714, Islamic forces controlled much of the peninsula, a region they called Al-Andalus" which seems reasonable. Portugal as such did not exist at this point. Johnbod (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cryptic C62 Having just gotten back on the wiki after a frantic period of real-life shenaniganry, I am delighted to see such an ambitious effort here at FAC. Kudos and thanks go to the nominators for their efforts thus far. Some nitpicks from the later sections of the article:


 * "the climatic change of the slow transition from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age" The change of the transition? Seems a bit redundant to me.
 * Now reads "The causes of the Great Famine included the slow transition from the Medieval Warm Period...." Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "These troubles were followed in 1347 by the Black Death, a disease that spread throughout Europe during 1348, 1349, and 1350." Not sure why four consecutive years are spelled out here. How about: "These troubles were followed by the Black Death, a disease that spread throughout Europe during the late 1340s."
 * Went with "disease that spread throughout Europe during the following three years." Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "the trauma of the plague led to an increased piety throughout Europe, which manifested itself in ... the scapegoating of the Jews." I think you may want to go back to the source and make sure that this is actually what it says. The connection here seems a bit dubious to me.
 * To understand it, you'd have to have been a medieval peasant. Davies states "The psychological trauma ran deep. Though the CHurch as an institution was weakened, popular religosity increased. Charity foundations proliferated. Intense piety came into fashion: people felt that god's wrath must be placated. In Germany huge companies of flgellants flourished until suppressed on orders fro Avignon. Communal scapegoats were sought. In some places lepers were picked on; elsewhere the Jews were charged with poisoning the water. In September 1348 a trial of Jews at Chillon was supported by evidence extracted by torture. It was the signal for wholesale pogroms: in Basle, all the Jews were penned into wooden buildings and burned alive; similar scenes occurred in Stuttgart, Ulm, Speyer, and Dresden. Two thousand Jews were massacred in Strasbourg; in Mains as many as 12,000." Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "throughout the rest of the 14th century; it continued to strike Europe throughout the rest of the Middle Ages." Repetitive phrasing. I suggest replacing one "throughout the rest of the" with "later in the", or even cutting out the second clause altogether.
 * It continued to come back quite frequently, however. It was repetative, and it's important to note that it reappears throughout the rest of the period. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but does the same piece of phrasing need to be used twice in one sentence? Surely there must be alternatives to "throughout the rest of the". What's wrong with "later in the"? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Throughout implies more than once during the period... "later in" implies only once. Let's try "Conditions were further unsettled by the return of the plague throughout the rest of the 14th century; it continued to strike Europe periodically during the rest of the Middle Ages." Ealdgyth - Talk 19:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "Peasants in Western Europe mostly managed to..." It's not clear to me what "mostly managed" means. Most of the peasants managed to do this? Or the peasants were able to change most of their owed work, but not all of it?
 * Now reads "Most peasants in Western Europe managed to change the work they had previously owed to their landlords into cash rents." which is hopefully clearer. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "At first, the English ... won the battles of Crécy and Poitiers, captured the city of Calais and won control of much of France." The introductory phrase "at first" is usually used when describing something that was true but later changed. I don't see how that applies here. The French did not time travel to go back and change the results of the battles. I suggest dropping "at first".
 * I've gone with "Early in the war the English under ..." Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "In the early 15th century, France once more teetered on the brink of dissolving" I'm not a fan of the colloquial "teetered on the brink", as it is unlikely to be understood by non-native English speakers. How about "came close to dissolving" instead?
 * Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "In modern-day Germany, the Empire continued" I hovered over "Empire" expecting the link to go to "German Empire" or something similar, and I was very surprised when it said "Holy Roman Empire" instead. This seems to be a Easter Egg link.
 * It's the correct link, however. HRE lasts until Napoleon. The "German Empire" is actually Bismarkian, when Germany finally united in 1871 (I may have the date wrongish). Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to suggest that the link was incorrect. What I meant to say was that it is unclear where the link goes until one actually clicks on it. I would suggest spelling out "Holy Roman Empire" in its entirety to avoid confusion. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * But it's not called the "Holy Roman Empire" until later in its history. In this period, it's just "the Empire" or (sometimes) "the German Empire". Ealdgyth - Talk 19:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "This is a legacy from both the Renaissance and Enlightenment, when scholars negatively contrasted their intellectual cultures with those medieval period." Missing words near the end? Should probably say "with those of the medieval period".
 * Fixed from above. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "Also, contrary to common belief, David Lindberg writes, "the late medieval scholar rarely experienced the coercive power of the church..." " I think it would be very helpful to give a specific example of this rather than relying on common knowledge. The first name that pops into my head is Galileo, but he's not from the Middle Ages, is he...?
 * Yea, he's 1600s. There really isn't an "example" ... so many folks think Galileo was medieval that that's the example they'll give. The whole period is full of popular misconceptions. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "One common misconception ... still very common" Is it common?
 * Yes. It's still often taught in grade schools here in the states, even. I had to ... err... get medieval on my son's teacher one year when she tried to teach them that in social studies class. It wasn't pretty, but I won. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments from Graham Colm This one I found odd for other reasons
 * This is an engaging whistle stop tour of a very long period of history and a thoroughly well researched contribution. I thought the prose was spoiled a little by several "with" expressions where a simple past tense might have sufficed. Here's few that examples (probably most of them):
 * "with old pilgrimage sites such as Rome, Jerusalem, and Compostela seeing renewed visitation"
 * "with some towns in Italy having more than one such enterprise"
 * "with one estimate giving a literacy rate of 10 percent of males and 1 percent of females in 1500"
 * "with more expensive engravings supplying a wealthier market with a variety of images."
 * "with his brother Robert I becoming king for 922–923"
 * I think I got all those, but I'll take a look through later and see if there are any others I've missed. Malleus Fatuorum 20:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In the late 13th century new land and sea routes were pioneered with the Far East"
 * Changed to "In the late 13th century new land and sea routes to the Far East were pioneered ...", which is what I think was meant. Malleus Fatuorum 20:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Graham Colm (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added my support. A few wrinkles remain, but a steam iron will not  be required. Graham Colm (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Any remaining wrinkles are down to me not being careful enough when reading through the article, but hopefully we're getting there. Eric   Corbett  22:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Partial comments from Espresso Addict As a complete ignoramus on the topic, so far I've found the article pretty readable and comprehensible, and well illustrated -- bravo!
 * I agree the lead image feels atypical. Is there mileage in trying a composite of three images, representing early, middle & late periods?
 * I disagree. This is a beautiful image, which is perfect for this article. Please do not change it. Graham Colm (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Throughout, there is occasional use of -ise as well as -ize endings. I know some words must use -ise in UK English, but others seem mistaken (eg proselytise is spelled both ways). Also need standardisation on use of em rule vs spaced en rule for parenthetical dashes.
 * I'll leave this for Malleus - he's the expert on British spelling. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we're consistent now. Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In the lead, I got a bit confused over the number of different names for periods, especially whether "Classical" is the same as "Antiquity".
 * Standardized on Antiquity. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Development of the concept: Should "mediaeval" have an ae ligature?
 * It is about half and half with or without, and since it's easier to type without... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Start and end dates: What is "Romance-speaking"? Can it at least be linked here? (Actually linked where defined under New societies section.)
 * I've linked it. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Later Roman Empire, para 1: can "curial" be defined as well as linked? How does it relate to "western Roman elites" under New societies, para. 1?
 * Now reads "decline in numbers of the curial, or landowning, class" Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Later Roman Empire, para 2: "did not resolve the problems it was facing: excessive taxation, a declining birthrate, and pressures on its frontiers, among others." -- slightly unclear what "among others" refers to (frontiers or problems); can this be rephrased?
 * Actually, it means that there were other, less important, problems. Suggestions on how best to word this welcome. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Later Roman Empire, para 3: where (roughly) is Thracia? Possibly also clarify Gaul, though probably better known.
 * It's in the Balkans - which I added. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Later Roman Empire, para 4: "emperor of the west" is there a reason this is sometimes capitalised?
 * When it refers to the title, it should be capitalized. Malleus? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's correct that it's not capitalised as it's referring to a job title, not to any specific emperor, but there was a following "Emperor of the West" which I've switched to lower case for consistency. I also wouldn't have capitalised "Empire", but that's another story". Malleus Fatuorum 19:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * New societies, para 1: "military strongmen" -- strongmen seems informal?
 * It's the general term used by the sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ditto: what is the difference between kingdoms and polities?
 * A polity is any political state. A kingdom is a type of polity. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ditto: why did the supply of slaves weaken? Is weaken the correct word?
 * Weakened is correct and the reasons why are probably a bit too complex to go into in an introductory/overview article. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Byzantine survival, para 1: can Hagia Sophia be defined in the text?
 * Not easily. It's a big church that had a ton of influence throughout the rest of history and is now a huge mosque in Istanbul. At some point, I have to allow the links to speak for themselves and not clutter the text with explanations for everything. It's clear from the context that it's a building - if you want to know what, that's what the link is for. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Byzantine survival, para 2: "It began small" seems informal?
 * Really? I don't think I need to use "big" words just to use big words, because, then will you be asking me to define every big word? Sorry, if that's a bit cranky, but this is an overview and I can't be defining every single thing that's linked or the article would be twice the size it currently is. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Rise of Islam, para 1: repetition of 632 date for death of Muhammad.
 * Removed second mention. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ditto: "Islamic forces conquered much of the Eastern Empire and Persia ... and the Iberian Peninsula" -- bit confusing, as Iberian Peninsula is in the west.
 * Yes, well, the whole sentence is "After his death, Islamic forces conquered much of the Eastern Empire and Persia, starting with Syria in 634–635 and reaching Egypt in 640–641, Persia between 637 and 642, North Africa in the later 7th century and the Iberian Peninsula in 711." which makes it pretty obvious that they swept along the north part of Africa to the Iberian Peninsula. The map should help make it clear also. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Trade and economy, para 1: "African products are no longer found in Western Europe" tense? Is this referring to archaeological finds?
 * Yes. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ditto: why is pottery complex?
 * I do not know why archaeologists consider pottery complex, they do, however. I would assume that simple goods are those that do not get any change, such as foods or salt. More complex products would be those that need more work to make or to ship. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, As a traded product, pottery is much more complex than basic commodities, if only because you have find designs that distant markets like. Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Church and monasticism, para 2: "The register, or archived copies of the letters, of Pope Gregory the Great (pope 590–604) survives, and of those more than 850 letters, the vast majority were concerned with affairs in Italy or Constantinople." -- seems a complex sentence for a simple idea.
 * Well, I could say "The register of Pope Gregory the Great (pope 590–604) survives with the vast majority were concerned with affairs in Italy or Constantinople." but I'm pretty sure someone would want to know what a register was and how many letters there were... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "The vast majority of over 850 archived copies of letters from Pope Gregory the Great (pope 590–604) concerned affairs in Italy or Constantinople." -loses several words and 4 commas! Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The three sections about Carolingian empire probably should be combined, possibly with lower level section headings. The end of Breakup of the Carolingian Empire section seems to refer to wider events, and perhaps should be relocated.
 * The Carolingian empire embraced most of Western Europe - it's breakup impacted all of Western Europe. We've already got a pretty complex TOC, I'd rather not get any smaller subheadings. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Carolingian Europe, para 2: "Carloman's minor son" -- I assume this means son who had yet to reach his majority, but it sounds as if there was a major son as well.
 * Changed to "young" Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Breakup of the Carolingian Empire: the map legend refers to the Treaty of Meerssen which doesn't appear in the text.
 * I wasn't aware that everything mentioned in a caption must be referred to in the text, but I've removed the treaty mentions. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it does in fact. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Will try to read the remainder later. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Military and technological developments, para 1: "cataphract-type soldiers" -- can you define this in the text?
 * Now reads "The creation of heavily-armoured cataphract-type soldiers as cavalry was an important feature..." Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually it now reads "heavily armoured", as there's no adjective after an adverb. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It's exciting to see an article like this at FAC.
 * Should the "Medieval" in the opening line be capitalised?
 * I think so, as a defined period, like Early Modern Period or "the Neolithic". Not when used as a adjective. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There's some inconsistency as to whether it's "romance laguages" or "Romance languages". Also, you link at the second mention, but not the first.
 * should all be "R" in my book Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, now fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 16:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "In Anglo-Saxon society the lack of many child rulers meant a lesser role for women as queen mothers, but this was compensated for by the increased role played by abbesses of monasteries." I don't understand what is being said here.
 * It's a bit fiddly, but in A-S society inheritance of the crown by the next male (let alone female) heir was usually not automatic, & boys tended to get shoved aside by their uncles etc. So no queen mothers in a regent-type role. But top-drawer ladies could be very powerful as abbesses of a distinctive A-S type of paired convents and monasteries *(we must have a link for these), where the abbess was usually top dog. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "By the end of the 7th century, under the impact of the Muslim conquests, African products are no longer found in Western Europe." Why suddenly into present tense?
 * Because it's talking about modern archeology. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "The 7th century was a tumultuous period of civil wars between Austrasia and Neustria." How can they be civil wars if they're between different kingdoms? Or did both kingdoms experience separate civil wars? Am I misunderstanding something here?
 * Perhaps best cut, but they were still sort of supposed to be part of the same Frankish polity. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've cut the "civil" here. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There seems to be some inconsistency with whether you refer to areas as (for instance) "present-day Wales and Scotland" or "France".
 * Is this bad though? Does it destroy the prose or make things unclear? Sometimes I think we pursue "consistency" too much at the price of prose or clarity. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "which limited the usefulness of cavalry as shock troops, but it was still possible for cavalry to use shock tactics in battle, especially when the saddle was built up in front and behind to allow greater support to the rider." This is going to be unclear to people not familiar with the subject matter
 * One of those areas where I can only go into so much detail before we bog things down. If I don't mention this, though, I'm not being complete. Suggestions on any "short" additions that could clarify? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Linking shock troops and possibly clarifying why they weren't useful as them would help. J Milburn (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Linked now and reads "During the early invasion period, the stirrup had not been introduced into warfare, which limited the usefulness of cavalry as shock troops because it was not possible to put the full force of the horse and rider behind blows struck by the rider." and I cut the bit about the saddle being built up as unneeded detail. Better? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Much clearer. J Milburn (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * At the end of the section on the Early Middle Ages, you have a picture depicting naval warfare- however, naval technology/naval warfare are not mentioned in the prose
 * Removed. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've read half-way down the article, and it's looking great so far. I'll be sure to finish the review later. J Milburn (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Continuing my reading-

Very well written- seems to be a fantastic summary. J Milburn (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "In central and northern Italy and in Flanders, the rise of towns that were, to a degree, self-governing, stimulated economic growth and created an environment for new types of trade associations." Something up with the commas in this sentence.
 * I don't think we need to be tripping over any of those commas except for the one after Flanders. Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 15:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As a non-English word, should "Reconquista" be italicised?
 * It is now. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Is Gesta Regum worth a redlink?
 * Right now Gesta Regum Anglorum is a redirect to William of Malmesbury, so I avoided using it. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined to say that Anselm of Canterbury is worth a mention when you discuss scholasticism. He's been called the founder of the movement, and, while it's not my area of philosophy, he's the second name I'd give after Aquinas.
 * For weight on this, I've leaned heavily on Barber's coverage of intellectual life in his Two Cities - Abelard gets four pages, Anselm gets about one (it's split over two pages, but coverage is about one page - this doesn't count his coverage in the political sections where he's discussed in his role as Rufus' Archbishop of Canterbury). Aquinas gets four or so pages also. It's pretty clear that Barber (who's writing an overview of the High Middle Ages as a textbook for college) thinks Anselm is a bit less important than the other two. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "when scholars negatively contrasted their intellectual cultures with those of the medieval period." They're positively contrasting their cultures, surely?
 * Try "This is a legacy from both the Renaissance and Enlightenment, when scholars contrasted their intellectual cultures with those of the medieval period, to the detriment of the Middle Ages." which hopefully makes things clearer. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Support everything seems in order from my two specialties (sources and images) -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  19:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. I started to object, writing I have a concern over the name/scope of this. This is an article about history of Europe during Middle Ages, not the Middle Ages. The lead even acknowledges this, stating "In European history, the Middle Ages, or Medieval period, lasted from the 5th to the 15th century." Look at the structure, it is a chronological history of Europe during Middle Ages. Where's the section on economy of Middle Ages? Culture and society? Granted, Middle Ages is a historical topic, but history also includes the fields of economic history, changes in social norms, and so on. Then I looked at the article again and realized it does cover those topics quite well :) This lives me with a some comments which prevents me from supporting:
 * concerns over linking. The first time word "Poland" is mentioned, it is not linked; it is linked only on its third use (to Kingdom of Poland (1385–1569)). Please add a link to Kingdom of Poland (1025–1385) on the first appearance. Lithuania is mentioned only once, linked to Lithuania, whereas the Grand Duchy of Lithuania would likely be more appropriate.
 * I"ve linked to Poland in the Early Middle Ages for the first mention, and Kingdom of Poland (1025–1385) on the second mention, which covers a broader spectrum of Polish history, I think. Also fits better into the chronological sectioning. Linked to the Grand Duchy. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * moving on, the article links a number of "state name in the Middle Ages" articles, but not Poland in the Middle Ages. Please add that, and see if there are any others missing.
 * Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd also recommend changing the link to German history to Germany in the Middle Ages, even if it is just a redirect now I am sure eventually it will be a full article
 * Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * While the article usually does good job with the main/further info templates, I am not happy with the "see also: Wars of Scottish Independence" in one of the sections. It seems much more minor than the other links of that level. Surely it could be incorporated as a sentence? Oh, I'd also suggest converting the other see also templates to main or further.
 * I actually prefer "see also" rather than further and have changed them accordingly. Also removed the Scottish bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree re Scotland. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I wonder if the article wouldn't benefit from a brief overview what was going on elsewhere in the world at that time?
 * Gulp! Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't really think so, honestly. The actual interactions between Europe and the Far East or Africa are pretty minimal - they mainly relate to the actual Middle East rather than the Far East. It's a pretty insular period. And the poor article is already huge! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Please ping me for talk if my response would be urgently needed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  11:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I shall deal with the rest of these (which are generally quite useful) tomorrow sometime. I've got a plant sale to go to wayyyyy too early in the morning. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Support now. Nice work, to say the least :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from the Duke of Waltham: I see I'm not too late to the party... Huge article, and it took me a while to find the time to read it properly, though you have little reason to care about that because I do not intend to support: I reiterate my view that, until I have submitted a FAC of my own, I cannot in good conscience vote on one. What I can do is provide yet another pair of eyes to comb through the prose, and I have found a few issues, which generally range from minor to negligible. (Actually, they turned out to be far more numerous than I expected, so apologies for posting this exhaustive list of minutiae so late in the process.) I have already made several minor style corrections—with this edit—so please don't think that I have brought up every stray comma, dash and hyphen here.

The article itself was beautiful—I simply cannot praise it enough. I was particularly excited to read the introduction, as I always am with high-quality, broad-scope articles; indeed, I find that few experiences in Wikipedia can be compared with reading a well-written lead on an important, well-known subject. (My vote of confidence for the impressive lead image, by the way.)

So, here we go:


 * Although the map shows that the Balkans belong to the Eastern Roman Empire, the text does not actually mention in which half Valens was emperor.
 * "with tribal items often modelled on Roman objects" – "noun plus -ing" phrasing ("being" implied), avoidable with "and tribal items were often modelled on Roman objects". This would entail a change in tense, but it doesn't look problematic to me in this case.
 * Done. Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * punctuation detail: in "The Burgundians settled in Gaul, and after an earlier realm was destroyed by the Huns in 436, formed a new kingdom", wouldn't the "and" be best placed before the comma (thus treating the commas like dashes in this sentence), or is it purely a matter of preference?
 * The problem I think is with the second comma, so I've slightly rejigged that and the following sentence. Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "futher complication" is found twice in the same paragraph; replacing the second instance with "another complication" would be a mild remedy for this repetition. (There is also the similar "further compilation" in the previous paragraph, so a more extensive change might be desirable.)
 * Changed the second occurrence to "an additional complication", and "further compilation" to "another compilation". Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "with the aristocratic culture focusing on great feasts held in halls" – "noun plus -ing" was declared fixed but is still there. Perhaps "and the aristocratic culture now focused on great feasts held in halls" would be acceptable, although someone might find a better phrasing.
 * Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 01:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And very elegantly, too, I should say. Question: am I supposed to start striking bullets now? They are only comments, after all; I am not requiring anyone to address them. Waltham, The Duke of 16:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I really don't know to be honest, but it seems like make-work to me and I rarely bother. If there's something I or Ealdgyth or Johnbod claim is fixed but you don't agree that it has been then just say so. The default for me is that if you don't object then it's fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable. Waltham, The Duke of 12:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "a pattern of large, contiguous blocks of land were the norm" – a pattern "was"; there is also much repetition of "patterns", although that probably can't be helped
 * Changed to "... large contiguous blocks of land were the norm", which also gets rid of one of the "pattern"s. Malleus Fatuorum 13:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "These differences allowed for a wide variety of peasant societies with some being dominated by aristocratic landholders and others having a great deal of autonomy." – "noun plus -ing" again; "some of which were dominated ... while others had" would solve the problem, I hope, satisfactorily
 * Changed to "... some dominated by aristocratic landholders and others having a great deal of autonomy". Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Officially, they were tolerated, if subject to conversion efforts, and at times..." – lots of commas; the removal of the first would make for a more unified sentence
 * Done. Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Umayyad descendants took over the Iberian Peninsula, the Aghlabids control of North Africa, and the Tulunids became rulers of Egypt." – "assumed control"? ("took control" would be repetitive)
 * "Franks traded timber, furs, swords and slaves in return for silks..." – I have added a few missing serial commas on my own, but I'm not sure whether the missing one here would introduce any ambiguity, so I've left it alone.
 * I'd say a serial comma there would be unnecessarily fussy and intrusive. Malleus Fatuorum 13:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "African goods stopped being imported into Europe, first disappearing from the interior of Europe" – I don't believe replacing the second instance of "Europe" with "continent" would create any ambiguity.
 * I don't think we need either "Europe" or "continent", as the context tells us what it's the interior of, so I've dropped "of Europe". Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "The replacement of goods from long-range trade with local products was a trend throughout the old Roman lands that happened in the Early Middle Ages." – just a thought: if the emphasis is intended to be geographical rather than temporal (also judging from the next sentence), why not switch the "throughout" and "that happened" clauses? The latter's position in the end makes it look a bit tacked on.
 * "the western branch becoming the Roman Catholic Church and the eastern branch becoming the Orthodox Church" – no "with", but still "noun plus -ing"; I don't know whether "became" or "would become" is more appropriate, which is exactly the ambiguity supplied by this construct
 * Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 01:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Charles, more often known as Charles the Great or Charlemagne, in 774 embarked upon a programme..." – Perhaps the year would be better off after the verb?
 * Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Italy was drawn into the Ottonian sphere by the late 10th century, after a period of instability, with Otto III (r. 996–1002) spending much of his later reign in Italy." – here the potential for ambiguity of the "noun plus -ing" construction becomes apparent, as Tony might remark: does Otto spend much of his later reign in Italy because it was drawn into the Ottonian sphere, or is it the reverse? The dates suggest the former, but not every reader will make this inference.
 * Changed to "By the late 10th century Italy had been drawn into the Ottonian sphere after a period of instability; Otto III (r. 996–1002) spent much of his later reign in the kingdom." Malleus Fatuorum 13:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Monks were also the authors of new works, including history, theology, and other subjects, written by authors such as Bede (d. 735), a native of northern England who wrote in the late 7th and early 8th century." – This sentence is a bit circular (monks were the authors of new works, written by authors); my personal preference would be for something like "...subjects; one such author was Bede...", though I don't claim it would be optimal.
 * "The period saw an increase in literacy, developments in the arts, architecture and jurisprudence, as well as liturgical and scriptural studies." – a minor point about this sentence's structure: if the period saw developments in liturgical and scriptural studies, rather than simply their existence (or coming into existence), then an "and" would seem appropriate after "literacy", and probably an "in" before "liturgical". If not, perhaps that ought to be made clearer.
 * "...and finds such as the Anglo-Saxon burial at Sutton Hoo and the hoards of Gourdon from Merovingian France, Guarrazar from Visigothic Spain and Nagyszentmiklos near Byzantine territory." – there's something unusual about this double "and" structure; is it a literary flourish or an error? Malleus?
 * Not a literary flourish, & not exactly an error that I can see. Sutton Hoo is a burial, but the others are just hoards so they need their own list. Would "and hoards such as those of ..." help? Any suggestions welcome. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I failed to notice the use of "hoards", which made me think there was something wrong with the sentence. I no longer think any change is needed here. Waltham, The Duke of 02:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "Another change was the introduction of the stirrup, increasing the effectiveness of cavalry as shock troops." – I know it was at another reviewer's suggestion that this sentence was changed, but I don't believe the result is grammatically sound... I am struggling with coming up with alternatives, though; my best idea is the implicitly self-referential "Another change was the introduction of the stirrup, with its associated/resulting increase to the effectiveness of cavalry as shock troops."
 * Changed to "... which increased the effectiveness of cavalry as shock troops". Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "with more of them in the regions of Southern Europe than in the north" – "noun and -ing" ("being" implied); perhaps I am overreacting, but wouldn't "most of whom were in Southern Europe" be more elegant? Or is it a misrepresentation of the source? (Actually, whether my suggestion is adopted or not, "the regions of" seems superfluous, unless a singular "region" is intended, meaning "in the general area".)
 * "Women in the Middle Ages were officially required to be subordinate to some male, whether their father, husband, or other kinsmen." – I think "kinsman" would be preferable over the plural, which implies that they might be subordinate to more than one male
 * Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 20:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "the rise of towns that were, to a degree, self-governing, stimulated..." – I am not sure about the comma after "self-governing"
 * Neither was I. Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 20:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Tens of thousands of people from all levels of society mobilised across Europe, and captured Jerusalem in 1099." – I find that comma unhelpful.
 * So do I, removed. Malleus Fatuorum 15:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note "Y" seems a bit out of place, considering the earlier introduction to the military orders.
 * "Although the Templars and Hospitallers took part in the Spanish crusades, Spanish military religious orders were also founded similar to the Templars and Hospitallers; most had become part of..." – Can't we avoid the repetition of the two orders' names here? Perhaps something like "...crusades, they also found imitators in newly founded Spanish military religious orders, most of which had become..."
 * Changed to "... similar Spanish military religious orders were founded
 * "Along with the still dominant heavy cavalry" – hyphenate "still dominant"?
 * Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 01:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Gunpowder was known in Europe by the mid-13th century with a recorded use in European warfare by the English against the Scots in 1304" – "noun and (implied) -ing"; the simple way out is by use of a semi-colon, and I think a shift to the active voice would improve the result: "...by the mid-13th century; a recorded use in European warfare was by the English against the Scots in 1304, although they used it merely as an explosive and not as a weapon.")
 * "Metalwork continued to be the most prestigious form of art, with Limoges enamel an option for reliquaries and crosses." – again the surreptitious form of "noun and -ing", the conversion of which to the past tense seems to reveal some sort of omission. Was Limoges enamel a popular option for reliquaries and crosses, was it restricted to these applications, or was it simply the most notable type of metalwork in this period?
 * Yes; no but they are probably the most numerous survivals; ho-hum arguably (but I'm not trying to argue so). Not entirely sure I see the problem here; obviously I'm trying to cram a complex picture into a short phrase. Is "popular option" any help? One could add to or qualify "reliquaries and crosses" I suppose, at the risk of padding. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Simply mentioning that Limoges enamel was an option (one of many) poses the question of why this specific method is mentioned here; indeed, it seems to assume that the method is familiar to the general reader, who would therefore be aware of its importance. On the other hand, saying that the method was popular or otherwise notable makes it clear to the reader why it is mentioned in the passage. Side-stepping the grammar issue at the same time, one could write "Metalwork continued to be the most prestigious form of art, and Limoges enamel was a popular option for reliquaries and crosses." If it was really popular, one might place more emphasis and use a semi-colon, followed by "Limoges enamel, in particular, was a popular option for reliquaries and crosses." Other options might be available; I am not the expert on either the subject or the capabilities of the English language, to be honest. Waltham, The Duke of 02:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've gone with "with Limoges enamel a popular and relatively affordable option for objects such as reliquaries and crosses" - the cheapness was a key element in its popularity. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Its inclusion makes more sense now, thanks. Waltham, The Duke of 16:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "...the Cistercians. The Cistercians..." and in the same paragraph "...laymen. Laymen...", as well as "...monks. Monks..." (higher in the article), would ideally be avoided, though I realise this might not be possible in some cases. I have no helpful suggestions this time.
 * Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I favour the use of "former" and "latter" but I am loath to introduce them into articles because I don't know to what extent people may find them confusing, so I am happy to be validated in this case. Waltham, The Duke of 16:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "which resulted in the average annual temperature for Europe declining during the 14th century" – "noun and -ing"; I propose "...in the decline of the average annual temperature for Europe during..."
 * Changed to "... which resulted in a declining average annual temperature for Europe during the 14th century ..." Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Most peasants in Western Europe ... by the end of the period." – These two sentences might beneficially be joined with a semi-colon.
 * Maybe the text has been changed since your comment, but I can't find that in the current article. Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's in the "Society and economy" sub-section. (No time to log in.) 2.85.9.226 (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Still can't find it. Malleus Fatuorum 20:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't see how, unless you included the ellipsis in the search. Here are the two sentences in full: "Most peasants in Western Europe managed to change the work they had previously owed to their landlords into cash rents.[260] The percentage of serfs amongst the peasantry declined from a high of 90 to closer to 50 per cent by the end of the period.[160]" Waltham, The Duke of 16:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "...governments. Governments also attempted to legislate a return to the economic conditions existing prior to the Black Death, partly at the urging of landlords." – Apart from the repetition of "governments", the "also" doesn't seem entirely justified by the context. I am thinking of something along the lines of "For their part, governments attempted to legislate a return..."
 * Rewritten. Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Kings profited from warfare by gaining land and extended royal legislation throughout their kingdoms." – I am not sure I understood the second part of this sentence perfectly. The kings gained from having their laws take effect across a greater part of their realms?
 * In the second paragraph of "State resurgence" we have "at the end of the Wars ... the Wars had ... the outbreak of the Hundred Years' War. The early Hundred Years' War..."; perhaps alternating the two terms would improve the paragraph a little?
 * "...ecclesiastical officials convened in Constance in 1414, and in 1415 the council deposed..." – It's just a personal preference, but "in the following year" seems quite natural here.
 * It does, changed as per your suggestion. Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "although subject to a crusade being called against it" – "noun and -ing"; I thought simply removing "being called" would do the trick, but "although the target of a crusade" seems even better.
 * I agree, changed. Malleus Fatuorum 01:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "with legal codes being promulgated in countries..." – the same; I recommend the use of the past tense after "and"
 * Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 01:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Would a serial comma before "and Giovanni Boccaccio" be confusing?
 * It would, because it would imply that only Boccaccio was in Italy, not Dante or Petrarch. Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "After his death, exploration continued; Bartolomeu Dias..." – wouldn't a full colon be better here?
 * I don't think so, as what follows the semicolon is a full sentence. Malleus Fatuorum 01:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's interesting; I hadn't realised colons were best-used to introduce sentence fragments. Waltham, The Duke of 02:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Erm, take your time... I am not objecting, after all, so you don't actually need to adopt any of my suggestions. I do intend to return for follow-up comments, though, should they be required. Waltham, The Duke of 04:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: the lead says that "the Carolingian Empire endured until the 9th century, when it succumbed to the pressures of invasion", but the article seems to place more importance on the various civil wars that weakened and divided the empire. I realise there isn't much room for manoeuvres in the lead, but the emphasis on this point doesn't seem entirely consistent with that given in the article. Perhaps I'm missing something. Waltham, The Duke of 02:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reworked to "the Carolingian Empire endured until the 9th century, when it succumbed to the pressures of internal civil wars combined with external invasions—Vikings from the north, Magyars from the east, and Saracens from the south." Ealdgyth - Talk 16:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Kudos for taking on such a huge topic; the article has markedly improved, and you've managed to keep it relatively concise. I don't have time to read through it thoroughly, but I found myself missing a reference to the influence of the Islamic world on medieval science. Could you add a sentence or two to "Rise of Islam" or "Intellectual life", possibly drawing on the sources in Science in the Middle Ages or Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe? Lesgles (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've roughly covered topics in the amount they are covered in a number of overview histories - the best place to delve into the whole concept of whether or not Islamic learning influenced medieval European science is probably in those more specialized articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also note that there already is something about the influences - "Among the results of the Greek and Islamic influence on this period in European history was the replacement of Roman numerals with the decimal positional number system and the invention of algebra, which allowed more advanced mathematics. Astronomy advanced following the translation of Ptolemy's Almagest from Greek into Latin in the late 12th century. Medicine was also studied, especially in southern Italy, where Islamic medicine influenced the school at Salerno." is right there in intellectual life. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I didn't see those sentences, and that somewhat resolves my worry that Islam might come across as no more than a conquering antagonist. I would be even happier, though if there were a brief mention of Averroes and Aristotle, of translations from Arabic, or the cultural life of Al-Andalus. From your sources, for instance, see Davies pp. 253–54, 349 or Oxford History of Medieval Europe, pp. 194–95. That's up to you, though. Lesgles (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * More comments
 * The small second-para of New societies features "kingdom" eight times.
 * Whacked a few out. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The (r. 1189–1199) and (d. 1085) things hamper readability and elegance of the prose, and should be used sparingly; i.e. when they add to the readers' understanding. Right now they are used everywhere a ruler is named, even when doing so is redundant. Example: "Louis the Pious (r. 814–840), was still alive by 813. Just before Charlemagne died in 814, he crowned Louis as his successor. Louis's reign of 26 years"—here the bracketed reign is clearly redundant to the text that follows.
 * I prefer to retain the consistency of almost always using the dates. It helps to anchor the chronology and avoids us having to put dates in the prose nearly as much. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1111–1125 → 1111–25 per WP:MOSYEAR (throughout).
 * I leave MOS issues to Malleus/Eric. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The MoS does seem to weakly recommend that style for 4-digit date ranges in the same century, so I've been through and changed all the occurrences I found. Eric   Corbett  17:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Is that timeline necessary? It is uncited (not all the dates in it are backed up by the prose/references), contradictory to the text (which gives a range of dates for end of the MA, none of which is the 1450 of the timeline), unnecessary (the MA are divided into three, you don't need a timeline for three ages) and kinda ugly (large vertical white space created + the text on the image looks pixelated and clunky).
 * Removed. (I've wanted to do that for ages, but since no one but me seemed to mind it, I kept it) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Missionary efforts to Scandinavia during the 9th and 10th centuries helped strengthen the growth of kingdoms there. Swedish, Danish, and Norwegian kingdoms gained power and territory in the course of the 9th and 10th centuries"—can these near-identical sentences be combined?
 * I've changed that to "Missionary efforts to Scandinavia during the 9th and 10th centuries helped strengthen the growth of kingdoms such as Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, which gained power and territory.". Eric   Corbett  22:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "the Moravians, Bulgars, Bohemians, Poles, Magyars, and Slavic inhabitants of the Kievan Rus'. These conversions contributed to the founding of political states in the lands of those peoples—the states of Moravia, Bulgaria, Bohemia, Poland, Hungary, and the Kievan Rus'"—is the repetition of the identical-sounding peoples and kingdoms avoidable?
 * Not really, I don't think. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Several common English words are overlinked in Technology and military.
 * Since they are discussed as developments, I think in this case linking the specific articles where further details of their development history are given is worthwhile. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Most of these are minor comments, but I hope you especially consider the second point. The bracketed date ranges have a jarring appearance, and introduce an unnecessary level of detail for such a broad article.122.172.22.100 (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Agriculture and food There seems to be too little about this considering that most of the population were peasant farmers, not clergy or warriors.  As examples of summary coverage of these topics, see  Agriculture and Food in Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages. Warden (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There is some coverage at various points, especially the para beginning "The development of a three-field rotation system for planting crops...". As those links show, there isn't much happening in medieval agricultural practice beyond the slow tweaking of Roman techniques, at least until right at the end. Medieval historians are, or used to be, obsessional about land tenure & agricultural economics & all that, which the article rightly treats pretty swiftly, but what and how things were grown receives relatively little attention. Perhaps a few points could be added.  Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * In general - those subjects aren't covered in general treatments of the middle ages. I've based my coverage on the relative weight of coverage in works that are generalist in nature and aimed at the non-historian reader. It *IS* an overview article, after all. If I add agriculture and food (and agriculture is covered under technological developments) then I'd need to add things about fashion, and where does it end? Food is entirely too regional in coverage - what English peasants ate in the late Middle Ages was vastly different than what the Slavic peoples ate during the early Middle Ages. We just can't generalize that well and it's not usually covered. Even the works I've consulted on peasant life don't cover food in much detail - it's generally two or three pages in 400 page works. That tells me that it'd be undue weight to cover food here. I'm more than happy to link to any relevant articles like I've linked to the various fashion articles, but that is probably about all we can do.
 * I think a lot of people have this image of the medieval peasants as being the same throughout the period and throughout the continent. This isn't the case - the entire period of the Middle Ages is one of "decline" and then "growth" - it was constantly in flux. I've hoped to get that across in this article - but at times it seems like everyone wants to add their own little "pet idea" without really looking at the big picture of the way the sources cover things or how the current state of scholarship is. I do have plans to write an Agriculture in the Middle Ages article sometime - but I don't feel that the coverage in this article is out of line with what the coverage in the generalist sources are. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * More about fashion would be good too — I especially like the detail about the development of buttons during the period. The article currently seems to say nothing about sumptuary law, which was developed during the period to restrain the middle class.  Such laws governed not only clothing but food too.  Note that social history is emphasised in education now and so we should give due weight to this. Warden (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Look. I'm going to repeat myself. This is an overview article. We can't possibly cover every single subject that happened during the Middle Ages. We're already pushing the limits on word count here... I'm trying to keep it within what the major secondary sources cover in overview articles. (As an aside - using the term "middle class" for the Middle Ages is a bit of an anachronism - it implies that there existed something like a modern middle class, which isn't the case. Nor are sumptuary laws "developed" in the Middle Ages - they existed long before this period.) The article is 14,500 or so words. There are going to have to be points that are referred to in just links and seealsos - and I've used the secondary sources to select what needs to be covered in more depth and what needs to go into subarticles. Singman's Daily Life in Medieval Europe (which I've used extensively to base my coverage of social history and daily life) doesn't mention sumptuary laws at all. And the coverage of food and drink is very small compared to the rest of the coverage. Likewise for agriculture. Wickham's work on the Early Middle Ages devotes about the same percentage of space to social history as I've devoted here ... discussing all the layers of society and how they changed and briefly touching on the changes that occurred in the period. Likewise for Barber's Two Cities, which I use for the High Middle Ages. I've spread things out a bit more on sources for the Late Middle Ages - there isn't one really standout book covering the whole period as a complete overview. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes sumptuary laws are notoriously held to have been pretty ineffective at all times and places, and the Middle Ages is no exception, even things like the Jewish hat and badge laws were very patchily observed as far as we can tell. The development of distinct clerical dress (by freezing Late Antique styles) and the beginning of the distinct and unusual Western habit of rapidly changing fashions in the late 14th century are probably what one would want to mention if there was space, but really I agree there isn't, and some articles are linked to. Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That idea of rapidly changing fashion might be worth a sentence though. Eric   Corbett  14:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I could distill one from the (mostly my) first 2 paras at [] if desired. Benton (already used) has a few pages on late medieval fashion, without making this point though, and she does take sumptuary laws rather more seriously than specialists do. Johnbod (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * We might make more space by combing out some of the redundancy which seems to arise from the division into Early/High/Late periods. For example, the technology sections keeps banging on about crossbows and the word is used 8 times altogether.  The words wheat, grain, corn or bread do not appear in the article. Warden (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

A few comments, not a complete review: - Dank (push to talk)
 * "into Antiquity, Medieval, and Modern periods": Just a nitpick, but I don't recall seeing anyone write "in the Antiquity period" before (just "in A[a]ntiquity") ... perhaps I'm off base on this. One workaround, if you like: "after Antiquity and before the Modern period" - Dank (push to talk) 14:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There are some judgment calls to make on "Middle Ages were" vs. "Middle Ages is/was"; since the meaning varies, it's not necessary to be consistent, but it's slightly jarring that it seems to alternate between singular and plural from one mention to the next.
 * I only found one was/were issue at the end of the lead, which is now fixed. Eric   Corbett  22:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "into Antiquity, Medieval, and Modern periods" vs. "antiquity, the Middle Ages, and the modern period": consistency
 * Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "the war with Sassanid Persia": A little better (per WP:EGG) would be "the war with Sassanid Persia" or "the war with Sassanid Persia"
 * I detest the habit of linking "the" - it looks utterly stupid. And we need to retain the link to Sassanid Persia, I'd think. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "The army doubled in size, and reforms resulted in a new emphasis on cavalry and smaller units instead of the infantry legion as the main tactical unit.": The army doubled in size, and cavalry and smaller units replaced the infantry legion as the main tactical unit.
 * Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "While the Visigoths were invading": Delete this part; the previous sentence establishes this (more or less)
 * Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "The Eastern Roman Empire, often referred to as the "Byzantine Empire" after": I'd take the quotes off. - Dank (push to talk) 20:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- A few dup links may be justified in an article this length, pls just review and ensure that's the case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've gone through and whacked a bunch of dup links. The ones remaining are long separated from their first mention and/or are not "commonly" known. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.