Talk:Scotland in the early modern period/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Royroydeb (talk · contribs) 18:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC) Hi,I will be doing this review.
James V

• " regents"-explain it a little.

 Done--SabreBD (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• "began to take revenge on a number of them and their families"-why?

Because they held him prisoner. Hopefully that is clear from the change explaining about the regents above.--SabreBD (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• "He continued his father's policy of subduing the rebellious Highlands, Western and Northern isles and the troublesome borders"-citation for it.

Its at the end of the section. I think something went wrong with the citations in this paragraph, so I am just checking them through.--SabreBD (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• "He also continued the French alliance"-what was before that he continued?To be precise you can write a little about the French alliance.

 Done

• "James V's domestic and foreign policy successes were overshadowed by another disastrous campaign against England"-What were the flaws in the campaign that it became disastrous?

Losing the Battle of Solway Moss was the disaster. I have stressed this a bit more.--SabreBD (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

RRD13 (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Rough Wooing

• Why was the political nation divided?
• "Failure of the pro-English to deliver a marriage between the infant Mary and Edward, "-why there was failure?

Protestant Reformation

• "reducing the powers of bishops"-How were their powers reduced?

RRD13 (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

On all three of these points, I am not sure that explaining all these details is a good idea. The article is already long and in these sections it is attempting to provide a concise summary, allowing readers to use the main article links if they want more detail. It could not possibly provide detail on every issue that might be prompted by the text and this is not really a requirement of GA.--SabreBD (talk) 09:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Mary,Queen of Scots

• defeat at Battle of Langside-who defeated her?
• she took refuge in England-where in England?
• leaving her young son-who is that son?

James VI

• How did Esme Stewart became his powerful male favourites?I mean what did he do?
• "who provided him with two sons and a daughter"-what does it mean?RRD13 (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest just wrapping up the review, and failing if the above concerns haven't already been addressed, since this has been too slow-moving. Wizardman 04:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I have been waiting for some kind of significant progress on the review and a response to my point about adding detail above, but maybe you are right that we should wrap it up as it is progressing very slowly.--SabreBD (talk) 09:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll give him a couple days and if nothing happens I'll pass it. Wizardman 16:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks.--SabreBD (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment on review status: I just took a quick look to see why the review was still ongoing after nearly three months. My feeling is that the issues raised in the Mary, Queen of Scots and James VI sections need to be addressed before this could ever be passed, so unless they are, it should be failed.

Addressing them should be easy, though I think that the Mary section needs just a bit more detail: The first paragraph should certainly make it clear here that Mary's son was by Lord Darnley, since there are three husbands mentioned in the course of the paragraph. I agree with Royroydeb that the next paragraph should at least mention who defeated Mary at Langside. It might be worth mentioning where in England she took refuge; I'd just replace "young son" with "James VI"; it's the same as the previously mentioned "infant son", but the conflicting descriptions may lead some readers to think it's two different sons. In the James VI section, I agree with both of the comments.

However, I think this needs a new reviewer who can give such a long, involved article a proper review. Royroydeb has covered only the first subsection of the first of seven sections: to pass an article of such length and depth when under a tenth of it has been reviewed seems inappropriate. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

In that case is there any way of getting a full review without having to fail and go to the bottom of the pile? I have hung on and on because it takes so long to get anybody to review a large article like this in the first place.--SabreBD (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

SabreBD, there's no reason to go to the bottom of the pile. You can make a request at WT:GAN, in the hopes that someone is willing to take over. If no one takes it over, we can put it back in the reviewing pool for someone to pick up: it will retain its seniority as the second entry in World history, though I think the restart technically counts as not being listed on the first attempt.

However, I think you need to be willing to make a commitment to respond in a timely fashion to the reviewer if you do—it doesn't look good that you haven't addressed some fairly straightforward issues in a month's time here, and your failure to respond to being pinged eleven days ago on your other GAN at Talk:Government in early modern Scotland/GA1 (or the original review nearly two weeks prior) is also far from ideal. I'm not sure a reset would be appropriate if you don't take action on the issues raised here on December 16 and that I reiterated a few hours ago. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)