Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Scotland in the High Middle Ages

Scotland in the High Middle Ages
Self-Nomination. It is up-to-date, actually employs the ideas that are current, rather than those that are out-of-date. This has been helped by the access I have at the moment to some of the people who are the main authorities on the topic. Its major downfall is length. Honestly, the 32kb guideline isn't nearly enough to cover a topic as big as this, and to cover it in a balanced manner, with citations. It broke my heart to cut the 35 or so kbs that have been cut already. I guess opinion on this will vary. The article balances political history with cultural history; it is well cited, avoids spreading misconceptions in a topic highly susceptible to this phenomenon. Moreover, it doesn't make out that we know more than we do (in a topic also highly susceptible to this). The article does not tilt too much coverage towards the end of the period either, another common phenomenon. I think the article is understandable. I'm nominating it because this article has been highly praised by my fellow wikipedians. - Calgacus 04:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Long but succinct on topics and broad in scope.  Especially appreciate the historiography section.Fifelfoo 05:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose, the lead needs to be broken into more readable chunks. Quotes should not be in itallics, see the MoS, the boxes around the quotes don't do much for readability either. Fair use images need fair use rationales, which they don't have. Images should be some standard size. Don't store the references on the talk page. Given that there are many spin off articles, a judicious copyedit could reduce the length of the article, for example Kingdom of Alba or Scotia, would be made more readable removing/paraphrasing some of the long quotes that are provided in full in the daughter articles.--nixie 05:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks for looking it over. I got rid of most of the text boxes. I genuinely don't know what you meant by "Fair use images need fair use rationales", but I made a serious effort at stardardizing and reducing the number of images (it had been suggested at Peer review that I add more). I got rid of the italicized quotes. I reinstated the references. I did more reductive editing. I don't think it would be productive to reduce the text any further. It is now 74 kbs (57 without the references and notes). I'm not sure 57 is entirely unreasonable for a article as broad and comprehensive as this one. - Calgacus 08:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks much better, see Image description page for instructions on adding fair use rationales.--nixie 08:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. I believe I have sorted it. I'm new to the fair use picture process, but I implemented the rational for the Braveheart and David I images. It didn't look necessary for the flag image, but may be I'm wrong. - Calgacus 09:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, the changes have tightened the text and improved readability a lot, great work, and thanks for adressing my points do quickly.--nixie 05:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. I suggest that the Braveheart promo poster doesn't add a lot of value to the article.  Jkelly 18:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply It was there to illustrate the Exercitus Scoticanus and to help readers make a connection between what they know and what they don't. However, maybe you're correct, so I replaced the image with that of a later medieval Gaelic warrior. - Calgacus 19:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support AllanHainey 13:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support| Mild Object Overall I thought the article very good. However the lead in was too verbose, had run on sentences, and capitalization errors.  Copy edit the lead in and I will support. Coffeeboy 17:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 'I gave the opening another run-over copy-edit. Is it more agreeable? - Calgacus 18:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Quite, great article. Coffeeboy 18:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support I was concerned that the recent editing would remove too much information. I'm pleased to be wrong. The quality is retained, the layout is better, the illustrations complement the article and Mel will not be missed. I applaud the depth and breadth of coverage. Many published works gloss over the early part of the period, ignore religion, economics or demographics, and treat regional resistance as a trivial detail, but not here. Angus McLellan 00:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * supportwith comments. history is well distilled but inadequate reference to Scone Palace, the coronation place of scottish kings.  i think the article needs some summaries of scottish architecture in this period....just a wee paragraph....Dunnotar Castle may also be a missed link.nevertheless very good job on a daunting topic.....cheersAnlace 04:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You're definitely correct about Scone. I added something about its status as a "capital" here. Some castles and ecclesiastical structures aside, Art and Architecture are one of the most sorely neglected features of the period. It would be nice to treat them some time in the future. - Calgacus 06:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 'Support - some tidying and clarification of the parts that came together to form Alba / Scotland needed, overall a valuable insight into a complex period. ...dave souza: talk 18:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Support: a breath of fresh air in the Scotland-related articles. Truly authoritative, well-drafted, sourced, gripping, and balanced. Occasionally this editor borders on the territory of Original research (or, if not "original", then at least "cutting-edge"), but not in this case, in my opinion. A very welcome addition to Wikipedia.--Mais oui! 21:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Support What a fantastic article! As I have said on a number of occasions, one of my tests of FA-worthiness on a subject I know little about is whether, after reading it, I feel like a semi-expert. This one passes with flying colours. It is nicely laid out, extensively referenced, with a separate bibliography, and as such is a truly scholarly work. Promote asap. Batmanand 11:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Support An an incredible article. Brilliant. Giano | talk 08:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support as per PR.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Fantastic. Forever young 14:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Outstanding! Porcher 03:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)