Talk:Charlemagne/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Seltaeb Eht (talk · contribs) 00:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 10:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Starting the review. More a.s.a.p. Tim riley talk 10:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

From a first canter-through looking for typos etc my first comment is that although the article is generally in BrE – centre, colour, favour, honour, metres, neighbouring, Sepulchre, spectre – the odd AmE spelling has crept in: neighbors, traveled. Most noticeable of all is the inconsistency of –ise and –ize forms. We have emphasised and we have emphasizes, recognised and recognized, standardised and standardized. Other –ise endings in the text are canonised, characterisations, Christianised, criticising, finalised, harmonise and idealised; other –ize forms are baptized, characterized, legitimized, organization, popularized and realizing.

I'll begin a proper study of the text next. Meanwhile pray ponder the above points. Tim riley talk 10:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing! It was a long labor to rewrite this article, and it received an excellent and thorough first GA review (which RL prevented me from completing), and has had a copyedit since. Thank you for helping get it over the finish line.

On English usage - yes, the article should be in BrE - it was tagged as such when I arrived, and the more prominent English-language scholars are from the UK. But as an American, I and my spellchecker often slip, so any catches on those are welcome. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Detailed comments

I must make it clear at the outset that the following are merely my suggestions, to be acted on or rejected as you see fit. I have found nothing in the text that I think must be changed to meet the GA criteria.

• Names

• "A number of languages were spoken in Charlemagne's world" – if you say "a number of…" the reader is likely to ask what the number was. Safer to say "many" or "several" if you don't know the number.

• Good suggestion, changed

• Early life and rise to power

• "practiced by the Franks" – practised, if we're in BrE

• changed

• Birth

• "German scholar Karl Werner" – clunky tabloidese false title, easily remedied by a definite article before the phrase. Ditto later in the text for German historian Johannes Fried, Historian Janet Nelson, Historian Rosamond McKitterick, Historian Henry Mayr-Harting, contemporary Byzantine chronicler Thophanes and historian Jennifer Davis.

• Clunky implementation of a good suggestion at the previous GAN, all revised.

• "but it cannot be proven – in English (though not in Scottish) usage "proved" rather than "proven" is usual.

• changed

• Language and education

• "German historian Johannes Fried" – is his nationality relevant?

• No, and removed from him and others

• Accession and reign with Carloman

• "but modern historians dispute this" – all modern historians or just some of them?

• It is the consensus - open to better suggested wording because I agree it's not great as is. The intended contrast is between what Carolingian propoganda represented (and some general audience works repeat today) vs. what today's historians actually say.

• "does not say whether Charles and Himiltrude ever married, were joined in a non-canonical marriage (friedelehe), or if married after Pepin was born" – do we want the "if" here?

• Omitting it reads much better, thanks!

• King of the Franks and the Lombards

• "the pagan irminsul – we capitalise the noun throughout our Wikipedia article on the topic. I merely mention it and don't presume to express an opinion.

• Reviewing my books, it does seem to be capitalized more often than not. Great catch

• Building the dynasty

• "under the care of regents and advisors" – according to the current (2015) edition of Modern English Usage the form "adviser" as opposed to "advisor" is "nearly three times as common across all varieties of English, and so the traditional spelling still predominates"

• Thanks, great catch. I was letting some of my professional usage leak in

• Saxon resistance and reprisal

• "convinced him to end his resistance" – a touch of WP:ENGVAR here. In BrE one convinces someone that and persuades him to.

• Didn't know that - good to know! changed

• Continued wars with the Saxons and Avars

• "lasted through 799" – does this mean "throughout" or "until"?

• Until, but inclusive of, 799

• Coronation

• "French scholar Henri Pirenne" – as with Herren Werner and Fried earlier, I'm not certain his nationality is all that relevant here. Or am I wrong?

• Not relevant, removed

• Governing the empire

• "more-sedentary rule" – I don't think I'd hyphenate this

• Agreed, I think one of the CE may have done so

• "focused on internal governance … increasingly focused" – rather too highly focused: perhaps a variant the second time?

• Revised this as I realized that it wasn't quite still making the same point as it was meant to. Let me know what you think.

• "requiring that all free men take an oath of loyalty to him" – to the emperor presumably but this doesn't say so.

• Indeed, specified Charlemagne

• Religious impact and veneration

• "Frederick Barbarossa convinced Antipope Paschal III to elevate Charlemagne – see comment above on "convince"

• Changed to persuaded

• Bibliography

• I avoid the heading "Bibliography" as it can equally mean "Publications about…" or "Publications by…" As there aren't any publications by Charlemagne it doesn't matter here, but even so I think "Sources" is clearer.

• I take your point, and see that's the usage on recent FAs. Changed

That's all from me for now. This article seems to me to have the potential for FAC, and if you take it on to that stage I shall have some pickier comments on some of the prose, but it will unquestionably suffice for GA. Over to you. Tim riley talk 12:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for all your suggestions, User:Tim riley - a couple left open above for your further comment ("but modern historians", "through 799", and "focused" comments).

Don't know about FAC, we'll see - a lot of work just to get it here, and related articles are still in need of a lot of attention. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

All fine now. And so:

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: