Talk:England in the High Middle Ages/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim O'Doherty (talk · contribs) 17:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Looks like a well-written and thorough article to me

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   I feel like the lead paragraph might be too long here. I'd consider splitting it up into another paragraph in the lead, or condensing it. Maybe a bit more of an overview rather than a timeline; it's well written, though just a bit too long. I suggest the following changes:

• considered the first Angevin king of England - feels a bit long. Maybe just remove it and save it for the rest of the article.
• and Henry making a dramatic exhibition of penance - Ditto
• Walter Scott's location of Robin Hood in the reign of Richard I and his emphasis on the conflict between Saxons and Normans set the template for later fiction and film adaptations. - I'd suggest removing this too. It's a bit long and is already in "Popular representations"

All fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@Unlimitedlead: Cool, passed. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Looking further down, the article seems to be well written. I can't fault the "Normans" section at all, it flows very well and is easy to understand for non-experts. The "Angevins" section I only have very minor criticisms of: Shouldn't "High King of Ireland" be fully capitalised as a MOS:JOBTITLE, rather than a description? I also don't really get this sentence: "In the 1160s the deposed King of Leinster Diarmait Mac Murchada turned to Henry for assistance in 1167, and the English king agreed to allow Diarmait to recruit mercenaries within his empire". Shouldn't it read "The deposed King of Leinster Diarmait, Mac Murchada, turned to Henry for assistance in 1167; Henry allowed Diarmait to recruit mercenaries within his empire", or something similar? Unless I'm missing something, "in the 1160s" and "in 1167" is tautology/contradiction. Lower down, shouldn't it be "what miserable drones[...]" instead, given that it's a phrase? "Revolt of 1173–1174" shouldn't have a capital letter either. I don't see anything obviously bad in the rest of the article; I think the "Popular representations" section is some particularly good prose. Other than some minor copyediting, and condensing the lead a bit, I think that this would pass the well-written requirement easily.

Should be all done now! Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

1. b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Again, I suggest reworking the lead a bit, but I'm not going to withhold this one.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   Looking closely at the references, barring a few at the end, this is what I got. I've not repeated those by the same author:

• Ann Williams (historian) - looks reliable, as a former Senior Lecturer in Medieval History

• Richard Huscroft - looks reliable, has a doctorate in medieval history

• Pauline Stafford - looks reliable, as Professor Emerita of Early Medieval History

• Nick Higham - looks reliable, as Professor of Early Medieval and Landscape History

• David Bates - looks reliable

• Hugh Thomas - looks reliable

• Ian Walker - can't find much on him, am willing to AGF on the source

• David Carpenter - looks reliable, Professor of Medieval History

• Larry Krieger, Kenneth Neill, and Steven Jantzen - can't find much on them, but willing to AGF on the source

• Marjorie Chibnall - looks reliable

• The Kaufmans - similarly, can't find much information on either, but will AGF

• J. O. Prestwich - looks reliable, fellow of Queen's College, Oxford

• Frank Barlow - looks reliable, as Professor of History

• C. Warren Hollister - looks reliable

• Judith Green - looks reliable, Emerita Professor of Medieval History

• Nicholas Hooper - seems generally reliable, looking at his works

• Simon Schama - looks reliable, as University Professor of History and Art History

• Lindy Grant - looks reliable, professor emerita of medieval history

• Rees Davies - looks reliable, Professor of History

• Mike Ashley - can't find anything on him at all, AGF

• Marcus Bull - looks reliable

• W. Warren Lewis - can't find anything, AGF

• Peter Ackroyd - looks reliable

• Jean Favier - looks reliable

• Charles Carlton - looks good, some of his works are used as refs in Charles I of England, which is a featured article

• Jean Flori - looks reliable

• Dan Jones - looks reliable

• Ralph V Turner - looks reliable

• Robert Bartlett - looks good to me

• Philippe Contamine - looks reliable, although his name seems to have been misspelled in the ref

• Edward Smedley - looks trustworthy

• J. S. Hamilton - looks to be generally reliable

• Danny Danziger and John Gillingham - looks good, are "medieval expert[s]"

• Janet Burton - looks reliable, professor of medieval history

• David C. Douglas - looks reliable

• Mavis Mate - looks good

• Susan Johns - looks good

• Miri Rubin - looks reliable, Professor of Medieval and Early Modern History

• Alan Forey - looks reliable, reader emeritus in history

• Diana Webb - looks good, Senior Lecturer in History

• Leonard Cantor - AGF

• Christopher Dyer - looks reliable, Emeritus Professor of Regional and Local History

• Stuart Prior - looks good to me

• Mark Bailey - looks reliable, PhD in History

• Gerald Hodgett - look good to me

• Ian Blanchard - AGF

1. b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Earwig returns 70.8% "violation possible". This isn't brilliant, but I will assume good faith here, as it's obviously not done maliciously at all. Maybe something to look at closer though. Won't withhold.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   Reading it, everything seems balanced, and no topic is given more airtime than the others, proportionally speaking. Looks solid.

   b. (focused):

   Really impressed by how concise this is. Passes with flying colours.

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   See 3a comment.

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Looking at the article history for the past two weeks, I fail to find a single revert.

5. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   Can't fault it here at all. Well illustrated, good captions and good ALTs. Everything's suitably licensed as far as I can tell.

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

6. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

   Altogether, I enjoyed reviewing this article. Really informative, well-written, succinct, and to the point. Again, some minor issues with the prose and the lead, but those can easily be resolved. I don't think Earwig is a deal-breaker here. Solid article. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

   Thank you kindly for taking up the review! Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

(Criteria marked are unassessed)