Wikipedia:Peer review/Middle Ages/archive1

Middle Ages
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…I'm thinking it's about ready for either a Milhist A-class review or for FAC. I've sweated blood over this article over the last year, working and reworking it until I am blue in the face. I'd love suggestions on anything I've left out, prose, prose flow, and all other things that are necessary for FA status.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 23:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

First major fallacy: That the Code of Justinian was "widely admired" in "The Middle Ages". Nope, in Western Europe, it was the Theodosian Code (preceding Justinian by a century) that formed the basis of diverse breviaries of Roman law, NOT the code of Justinian. THAT is the development from the High Middle Ages, but certainly not the case in the Early Middle. In your lead, you should not make generalizing statements that is merely supported by a section of the substance. If you wish to retain the Code of Justinian sentence in the lead, you'll need to make it clear, in the lead, WHEN within the milennial "Middle Ages" period, that law code became an ideal.Arildnordby (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Added "later in the Middle Ages" - the lede is expected to be an overview of the overview - it's not a "fallacy" but was perhaps a bit too simplisitic. Thank you for the comments though. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd rather reformulate to something like "throughout the Middle Ages, Roman law was widely admired, and in part practiced, for example byuse of the Code of Justinian" (It is too technical to mention the Theodosian Codes and Breviary of Alaric etc; thus, saying for example Code of Justinian is better. The weakness with "later in the Middle Ages" is that it seems to imply such admiration did NOT exist in EMA (which is wrong).

As for "major fallacy": In a generally good text like yours, something that would only have been a minor blemish in a worse text stand out as a "fallacy". It wasn't much else I found to criticize, so it was the "most major" fallacy I was able to find.:-)Arildnordby (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)