This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medieval Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Medieval Scotland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Medieval ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject Medieval ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject Medieval ScotlandMedieval Scotland articles
Scottish literature in the Middle Ages is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the ancient Celts and the modern day Celtic nations.
If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess.CeltsWikipedia:WikiProject CeltsTemplate:WikiProject CeltsCelts articles
As usual for your nominations, Sabrebd, this is a strong candidate for GA status. I've performed a copyedit, and found just a few problems that need to be addressed.
Both the lead and "Late Middle Ages" sections end by noting that the Eneados' completion was "overshadowed by the disaster at Flodden in the same year". First off, you should link to Battle of Flodden so the reader knows what you're referring to. Second, it was only a "disaster" from one POV, so that should be reworded.
It's definitely not NPOV to call an English victory a disaster in a Wikipedia article. (The Scottish point of view is not the only one that finds Scottish literature important.) – Quadell(talk)16:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Not done
The "High Middle Ages" section starts by saying that Viking raids "may have forced a merger", but the following sentences assume that the merger happened. Why the uncertain language? (I can't see the source.) Do we know if the crown actually merged or not? It's not clear to me what's certain and what's not.
I wasn't comfortable stating "This culminated in the rise of Cínaed mac Ailpín", since it isn't altogether clear what what is and isn't factual about that person. I attempted a rewrite to reflect this. Is my wording factually accurate? – Quadell(talk)16:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
When you say "Much of their work survives in a single collection", do you mean that much of the work of Dunbar, Henryson, Kennedy, and Douglas survives in a single collection? And do you refer to the Bannatyne Manuscript, or is that separate? That could be made clearer.
Do you really mean "the first complete surviving work includes John Ireland's The Meroure of Wyssdome", or do you mean that the first complete surviving work was John Ireland's The Meroure of Wyssdome?
Although not a clear error and not required for GA status, the sentence beginning "They often trained in bardic schools" is confusing and could use a rewrite.
Besides these unclear bits, the article is in very good shape. All the images are in the public domain and are used appropriately. The lead adequately summarized all section of the article, and though it might slightly overemphasize the "Late Middle Ages" section, it's not a serious problem. The article seems reasonably complete and does not go on tangents. The organization is fine. I have spotchecked several of the sources and found the article's statements fully supported by the sources without plagiarism.
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
The article has now been on hold for 11 days, and it was originally only supposed to be on hold for 7. I'm afraid I'm going to have to fail this nomination for lack of action, since not all issues have been resolved in a timely manner. It's very close to GA status, though. If you fix the remaining issue, feel free to renominate this article for GA status, and I suspect it will pass. All the best, – Quadell(talk)15:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Reply