Talk:Government in medieval Scotland

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Government in Medieval Scotland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 01:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi SabreBD, I'll be glad to take this review; it's always a pleasure to read your work. I hope to post initial comments in the next 1-5 days. Thanks as always for your work on Scotland topics -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on. I look forward to it.--SabreBD (talk) 07:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I've been a bit slow coming back to this, but I haven't forgotten you. Should have my initial comments finished by Wednes. at the latest. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

Ok, I'm about halfway. So far this looks strong, but I'm mostly doing a read for prose at this point rather than source review. As usual, I'm doing some tweaks and fixes as I go; please revert any with which you disagree. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• "While our knowledge of early systems of law" -- I'm always a little wary of the vague "we" without a clear referent; I'm assuming you're not including me in that we, for example. =) Would it be fair to write "While modern knowledge" or "While historians' knowledge"?

 Done--SabreBD (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• "by laymen " -- just a double-check on gendered language here--it's safe to assume that all members were men?

Yes, it is accurate here - there were never any female members.--SabreBD (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• "In victory they may have received rewards in return" -- I assume you mean "underling kings" by "they" here--what would be the proper term? Vassals? Subjects?

 Done Since this is pre-feudal cannot really say vassals or subjects. I opted for subordinate rulers - some may have called themselves kings and some not.--SabreBD (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• "The first ceremony for which we have details" -- "we" ---> "historians"

 Done Focused on the sources rather than the reader.--SabreBD (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• ", which describe a ceremony that combined" -- "which" doesn't really work here, since the previous noun is "a ceremony for which we have details". Could this be "an account describes" or "accounts describe"?

 Done I split the sentence up to avoid the "which" - it is worth checking that the meaning is now clear.--SabreBD (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• The Roman Law principle that "a king is emperor in his own kingdom" can be seen in Scotland from the mid-fifteenth century. In 1469 Parliament passed an act that declared that James III possessed "full jurisdiction and empire within his realm". -- as quotations, should get individual inline citations.

 Done--SabreBD (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• "The first Scottish monarch to actually wear such a crown was James V, whose diadem was reworked to include arches in 1532, which were re-added when it was reconstructed in 1540, which remains the Crown of Scotland." -- lots of clauses here; consider breaking into two sentences.

 Done--SabreBD (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• "New Monarchy" is inconsistently capitalized -- the earlier sentence reads "new or Renaissance monarchy" -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done--SabreBD (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Most of the active members of the council for most of the period" -- is "the period" here the medieval period, or the late fifteenth century?

 Done Just the late bit.--SabreBD (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Our knowledge of the nature of Scots law" -- "Present-day knowledge"?

 Done--SabreBD (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• " In Scandinavian-held Udal law formed the basis of the legal system, and it is known that the Hebrides were taxed using the Ounceland measure" -- is there a word missing after "Scandinavian-held"? I'm having trouble parsing this, but may just be a brain malfunction on my end.

 Done Your brain is fine. It was a missing word. Not sure what that says about my brain.--SabreBD (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• "we have surviving examples of early Scottish legal literature" -- "there survive examples of..." (or "there are surviving examples of...")? -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done--SabreBD (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that covers any concerns for my initial pass. Let me know when you've had a chance to address these, and I'll take another look and do a more detailed source review to check for comprehensiveness, accuracy, copyvio etc. Thanks again for your work--I think it's coming along great. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I think all the initial issues have been resolved. I look forward to the next bit. Thanks for the work so far.--SabreBD (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, all the above looks good. Starting the final checklist, will see if I turn up anything else. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the PD licenses, which I think is the only outstanding issue.--SabreBD (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is good; spotchecks (Reid & Zimmerman, MacDonald) show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This is a hard criterion for me to judge, since I can't turn up reference articles for comparison in other works. However, the article appears thorough, and comparison to the article's sources suggests main aspects are covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:David I and Malcolm IV.jpg, File:Robert II (Alba) i.JPG, and File:Alexander III and Ollamh Rígh.JPG need US copyright status tag. File:Regiam.Majestatem.preface.page.jpg appears to have an obsolete tag--I'm not entirely sure what this error msg means, but it should presumably be replaced by another copyright tag.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA