Talk:Scottish society in the early modern era

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Scottish society in the early modern era/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

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: good; copyright OK; spelling, grammar OK. Some clarification tags have been placed in the text for attention please.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead: OK Layout: OK; Weasel: OK; Fiction: N/A; Lists: N/A
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.	OK, however the references are very repetitive.
	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).	well cited
	2c. it contains no original research.	no sign of it
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I wonder if the Social structure section is not rather brief, given the topic. We hear only a sentence on tenants-in-chief, on husbandmen, burgesses, craftsmen. Perhaps these social strata deserve a little more coverage? There is more on witches than all these together, for example. See also comments on Images below; we learn very little of how society actually functioned (travelling tinkers, merchants, blacksmiths, millers...?) but this would seem to be central to an article on society. Feels much more balanced now. Family - see clarification tags. Demography - grain from Baltic. Perhaps there should be a few figures (could be a table or graph) here to fill out the "large quantities" since these are known, as a proxy for the demographic changes. Perhaps, too, there should be some explanation (given the 1764 plan) of the extent of Edinburgh during the period in the text: it seems to extend only from the Castle mound to Calton hill, though the "with its suburbs" gives one pause: please clarify whether the plan is not misleading (is it leaving out the scruffy parts?). Yes, that's better. "Half living north of the Tay": the Highlands were therefore far more densely populated: perhaps it would be good to describe the nature of the settlements, which included summer dwellings for shepherds high in the hills, etc. Poverty and vagrancy - see clarification tags. Old poor law: "most subsequent legislation", "the system" - not sure this is fully explained.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	no deviations
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	no unacceptable bias
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	no sign of it
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.	All images from Commons, tagged
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Well-chosen images. What is missing is a sight of the common people at work, at a wedding or dance, etc.
	7. Overall assessment.	An enjoyable and well-balanced article about a now-remote society.

Thanks. I think the clarification issues can be dealt with fairly easily. Some of the expansion issues might take a bit more research. I will probably look at those over the week and hope to sort them out at the weekend.--SabreBD (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

OK. Please see note on repeated references, it would be a lot better to tidy it up. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of upsetting someone in the middle of a review, Whoa!. Please don't change the referencing system. Whether that is better is a matter of opinion and should perhaps be a suggestion (is not a GA criteria afterall).--SabreBD (talk) 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it's purely a suggestion. Feel free to do as you like with the references. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I have taken the step of reverting the restoring the footnotes. I know it seems tidier, but Wikipedia can afford the room and in my experience short titles create a number of problems in an electronic formats, including the issues caused when subsequent edits are made and they get disordered and the issues created when part of an article is taken off to form a summary or contribute to another article and the references have to be reconstructed. However, a bibliography is always a good idea, so we can complete that.

Va bene cosi.

I am also unsure what is being looked for in the [which?] in the Poverty and Vagrancy sub-section. It is one of the three acts mentioned in the previous section. What is being requested here - it is a link or a full title?--SabreBD (talk) 09:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggest you name the specific one of the three acts (or link), I just felt unsure what exactly was being denoted.

We're nearly there. Could you please extend the lead slightly to reflect the additions made, and indicate under "3. Broad" above your response to the suggestions there.

I am working on the two outstanding issues in 3a and then will take a look at the lead. I hope to get this done today.--SabreBD (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I have implemented all of the suggestions I can. I have changed the plan of Edinburgh and made some adjustments that I hope will make the expansion point clearer and, I think, dealt with the issue of patterns of settlement. I have expanded the lead to incorporate the new material. The only thing I have not done is the suggested table of grain imports. I only have access to two sets of figures, so I am not sure this will help make the demography point. However, if I can find some better information I may use this idea in a future break-out from the Demography of Scotland article, so the observation may not be wasted. If you could take a look and see if I have missed anything that would be great.--SabreBD (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the effort at expansion and clarification has improved and balanced the article. Of course more is always possible but I'm satisfied we've crossed the GA threshold convincingly. Keep it up! Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for a conscientious and helpful review that has led to considerable improvements in the article. As you say, there can always be more, but it is good to have reached this landmark. Much appreciated.--SabreBD (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)