Wikipedia:Featured article review/Middle Ages/archive1

Middle Ages

Middle Ages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As of 13 November 2024, 02:12 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. A FAR coordinator will advance or close this nomination when consensus is reached.

• Featured article candidates/Middle Ages/archive1

• Featured article review/Middle Ages/archive1

Notified: Ealdgyth, Johnbod, Reddi, Adam Bishop, Middle Ages, European history, Visual arts, Military history, History [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it was heavily edited, partially rewritten and slightly restructured for various reasons since 23 December 2021 ([10]), so it needs a thorough and comprehensive new review. Borsoka (talk) 03:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Regarding the broad structure, it seems worth bringing up for discussion that the article seems structured as three separate topics rather than a single one, being set up as a summary of each period (Early, High, Late). There are 3 society subsections, 3 military and technology subsections, and 3 Art and Architecture sections. This gives the impression that the three periods are quite distinct with little connecting the historical division as a whole. This may be true (within usual historical fuzziness, although but then why is there only a two-fold division in Romance historiography?), but if so I'd expect something a bit more explicit about such disjunctions in Terminology and periodisation. Aside from that discussion, overall, it does not appear at an initial read through that the quality has obviously decreased since the linked version. Perhaps worth a note that the new version calls highlights a single historian (Miri Rubin) in Terminology and periodisation, while removing the highlighting of C. R. Dodwell in the second Art and architecture subsection. Best, CMD (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments. (1) I did not touch the main structure of the article because it has been stable for more than a decade ([11]). I think the article follows a quite common scholarly practice, as its structure is based on chronology instead of topics. This is fully in line with most of the cited books. As I also noticed that the article failed to explain why the Middle Ages is discussed as one period in scholarly literature, I expanded it with two sentences about the period's main characteristics (I refer to the third paragraph in section "Terminology and periodisation"). If we ignore these common characteristics, we can indeed conclude that the three subperiods were quite distinct, as it is presented in the article. On the other hand, the article (I hope) also presents the links between the subperiods. (2) The sentence containing a reference to Dodwell presented his PoV about frescoes in churches in the west. As I prefer facts and wanted to expand the article about details of Orthodox architecture and art, I deleted the PoV sentence, and added a sentence about Balkan church architecture. (3) Miri Rubin is primarily named because I preferred to quote her words instead of paraphrasing them. Furthermore, she is a prominent contemporaneous historian of the period, who is specifically mentioned in John H. Arnold's cited book about problems of medieval history. Borsoka (talk)

• Borsoka is correct. The rewrite in the last 3 years has been so complete that the usual FAR process is totally inappropriate, & the article should immediately be delisted so that the new owner can, if he wishes, reapply at FAC. The main contributors in the last decade per the page history (Borsoka, Ealdgyth and myself) have all said so in the past, so there should be no difficulty. The stats give Borsoka, who first edited the article 27 December 2021, long after it became FA in May 2013, 70.5% of the "authorship attribution", in 1411 edits. Johnbod (talk) 12:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• As far as I know, nobody owns an article, although I have experienced that some editors tend to ignore this rule. I am not convinced that the above suggestion is fully in line with the relevant rules. Borsoka (talk) 02:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Borsoka: It's not so much about ownership as stewardship, and it's encased in policy. ——Serial Number 54129 15:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

To clarify - the below replies to a cmt now huffily blanked by the poster. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Always the not-understanding with you! FAR is meant to be a much lighter process, and normally attracts far fewer reviewers and comments. That may be fine for an article that has already been through FAC, but is wholly inappropriate for one that has been changed as much as this one, in effect completely re-done. In the past Borsoka expressed the view very strongly that the previous version was absolutely terrible, and should never have been made FA. What is presented now is a completely new article, that has never been through FAC, as it needs a full review, for the first time. I hope this has clarified. Johnbod (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• While one wouldn't expect great detail on military matters, the article does over-rely on a single generalist work (Nicolle Medieval Warfare Source Book), which means a single and perhaps slightly dated perspective. Conflicting views on the roles of cavalry and infantry or the importance of technology in works by Rogers, DeVries and the Bachrachs among others deserve mention. The later medieval section is rather weak on maritime advances, which are a very significant factor going into the 16th century as the reach of European ambition expands globally (economic motivation is fine but it needed the technology to achieve it). This should include advances in navigation (development of portolan charts and so on) not just shipbuilding.Monstrelet (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comment. During the next weeks, I will try to improve the sections about military history taking into account your suggestions. Borsoka (talk) 02:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka, saving a space, will be adding comments soon. I will try to do a comprehensive review as you request in the introduction here, but given the huge scale of this article, that will take a lot of time. I hope that is ok. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Please remember that you are not re-reviewing an existing FA, but what is in effect a completely new article that has never been through FAC. So you should indeed the thorough, if you think it is appropriate to engage in this at all. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Johnbod, I understand the quality of the review would need to be high. I will work on being as thorough as possible, please let me know at any time during the process if I err. Matarisvan (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Here goes the source formatting review, source review to come soon.

• Link to Frances and Joseph Gies as done for other authors?

• I am not sure that the existing link Frances and Joseph Gies is useful, and linking it to both names would be difficult.

• Remove the second link to Edward Grant, as we have not linked similarly for Chris Wickham, the only other author we have used two works from?

• Done.

• Link to Oxford History of Art, Oxford Illustrated Histories, Routledge Studies in Medieval Religion and Culture, as done for other series?

• Done.

• For Lasko 1972, why use the old SBN format, and not the ISBN provided by Google Books: 9780300060485? Have there been any material changes between the two texts? If you choose the latter, the formatting would also be consistent with all the other sources in the biblio.

• I use the format presented in the book. Borsoka (talk) 03:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Very well, the source formatting review is a pass then, will do the image and source reviews tomorrow. Matarisvan (talk) 07:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Here goes the image review:

• File:Новгородская грамота 109 от Жизномира к Микуле 12 век.jpg - PD tag could be disputed since the photo seems to be from a book published in 2021, unless this fragment is already in the public domain, say at a museum or public collection, if so then the tag will have to be updated.

• I added a new link. Borsoka (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The site has the following copyright info: © 2023 – National Research University Higher School of Economics; Institute of Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Are these government institutions? If so, then will be PD. Matarisvan (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• File:Venice city scenes - in St. Mark's square, File:Sanvitale03.jpg - St Mark's Basilica (11002237996).jpg and - The photographers may have provided CC license for the images, but are they covered under Italy's freedom of panorama?

• Based on Nikkimaria's linked remark, I understand that the "freedom of panorama issues specific to Italy are non-copyright restrictions". [12]

• File:Europe and the Near East at 476 AD.png, File:Map of expansion of Caliphate.svg, File:Carolingian territorial divisions, 843/855/870.png, File:Europe mediterranean 1190.jpg - I had issues with a map which had colors like these ones in my recent FAC nom, due to MOS:COLOR. Black and white versions of these maps would be better.

• We do not have available maps of better quality. From a practical perspective, I think the fact that most of the maps have not been challenged for more than a decade indicates that our readers think they are useful. [13]

• File:Aachen Germany Imperial-Cathedral-12a.jpg, File:Frühmittelalterliches Dorf.jpg, File:Maria Lach 02.jpg: Covered under Germany's freedom of panorama?

• See my above remark.

• File:Catedral Gótica de León.jpg: Covered under Spain's freedom of panorama?

• See my above remark.

• All other images seem to have proper sources and copyright tags, at least as far as I can tell. @Nikkimaria will be able to provide more feedback on the images.

Matarisvan (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm one of the likely closers on this so will leave it to you :-) Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you for your image review. Borsoka (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Ok, all images seem ok now except for File:Aachen Germany Imperial-Cathedral-12a.jpg. As per Commons, Germany's freedom of panorama rules are: "In the case of architectural works, the freedom of panorama provision is applicable only to the external appearance. Therefore, pictures of interior staircases and interior courtyards cannot be used under § 59(1) even if all of the above-described conditions are met". Now, the image does not show a courtyard or staircase, so it could be allowed on a technicality but it can very well be disputed too. For the St. Mark's Basilica statues and Sanvitale03 images, FoP is "OK for objects where the copyright has expired". The statues are from 290s AD and the mosaic from 547 AD so both are ok. On the maps with color as a legend, I'm not an expert, only Nikkimaria or another editor with image review proficiency will be able to rule on this. So pending the MOS:COLOR issue, everything else is ok. Once that is resolved then we can pass the image review. Matarisvan (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• I replaced the picture about the Palatine Chapel with another one from a Carolingian manuscript. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  All ok then, the image review is a pass based on my assessment. I will try to do the source review within 2-3 days. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• As I've said before, this article is hugely lacking in music content. Despite the lengthy architecture & art sections, there is quite literally eight words on music. This is not acceptable: this period saw some of the most important developments of Western music: notation, harmony, genre etc.—these developments are vastly more fundamental than any innovations in art/architecture. This period was quite literally the birth of Western classical music. – Aza24 (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Excellent idea. Could you recommend a comprehensive book about medieval music? Borsoka (talk) 09:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  For recent surveys, I'd recommend these: [14] [15] [16]

  The classic surveys are: [17] and [18] – Aza24 (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• @Aza24: I expanded the article ([19]). I would be grateful for your comments. Borsoka (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  Definitely some most-welcome improvements. I'll try to take a closer look this weekend. Aza24 (talk) 04:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Here goes the source review. Since the article has ~500 refs, I will be doing spot checks for 20 refs, which is 4% of the total refs. I will also be using a random number generator to make the ref selection as random as possible.

• Would you consider adding DOIs and JSTOR IDs for books? If so, I can provide these. Many sources are from OUP, CUP or other university presses which allow access with the above through The Wikipedia Library that is easier than accessing through ISBNs.

• Sorry, my time is quite limited. I standardised the references and added a link to the books which was a boring work. I would not expand the references with further details. Borsoka (talk) 01:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Why is David Lindberg mentioned twice as an editor in Lindberg 2003?

• Fixed.

• All sources are from reliable publishers.
• Is there any material in the sources from the further reading section which could be added to the article? If not, you may have to remove the section entirely. I personally don't have any issues with such a section but have seen reviews where editors have criticised the need for it.
• Could you provide quotations for the following refs? I tried accessing some of them on Google Books but many previews don't have page numbers, making spot checks hard. I'll try to access some of these that have DOIs or JSTOR IDs, for the others you can provide quotations.

1. 48, #83, #84, #97, #116, #216, #263, #280, #325, #338, #344, #368, #377, #394, #400, #463, #473, #487, #492, #495. Matarisvan (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@Borsoka, I'm thinking of doing spot checks only after you've incorporated Aza24's suggestions on medieval music. That way, one or two refs from such text added can also be checked. Wdyt? Matarisvan (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• Sorry, I was on holiday and I am extremly busy in real life now. I am working on adding info on music. Borsoka (talk) 01:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Borsoka: Not a problem, please tag when you have the time to work on the article and we will resume the review then. Matarisvan (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I intend to have a look sometime in the next month. Ping me if I haven't got round to it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 :) Aza24 (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  I did a quick read of the lede and skim of the rest. Made some tweaks, but didn't find glaring deficiencies. Sdkb ^talk 21:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  The "glaring deficiency", from the FAR point of view, is that the article has been very largely rewritten and almost completely re-referenced by Borsoka since it passed the FAC, without involvement by the original editors. It is essentially a different article, which has not been through FAC. The only thing to do is to remove FA status, & let it be re-submitted at FAC. The FAR process is not intended to deal with this situation, & is not capable of handling it. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Just three remarks. One of the "original editors" (=nominators) had been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry, so they could hardly be involved. A second nominator decided that they would unwatch this article soon after I started tagging the article indicating several cases of unverified statements, marginal PoVs, factual inaccuracies etc. ([20]). The third nominator, actually, was actively involved in the process by unverified reverts and by sharing their own thoughts on several aspects of the medieval periods without referring to reliable sources (as it is demonstrated in several discussions in Archive 10, Archive 11, and under section "Laziness" in Archive 12). Borsoka (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Whatever. No disagreement with the salient points, I see. Johnbod (talk) 02:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, no other editor has accepted your proposal. I cannot agree or disagree with it because you have not quoted a single text from any relevant WP policy to substantiate it. Borsoka (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• This review is going nowhere and frankly is an insult given the article history. Move to delist sadly; page has denigrated and has not received a review on FAC criteria in its entirely re-written form. Borsoka suggest you take it to GA first, then to PR before you present again as FA-worthy; although your aims seems to be to smith your enemies rather than move the page on. Dismal behaviour. Ceoil (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• I have no enemies. Please do not assume that editors are here to fight although I am sure this is a surprise for you. Perhaps you want to take me to ANI for misconduct instead of continuing your boring personal attacks. Borsoka (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Move to delist nonetheless. Ceoil (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

FARC section

Moving to get more input regarding this article's status WRT the FA criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delist obviously. The current version is, via attrition,not what was examined at FAC. And per Johnbod above, FAR is designed to repair and shouldn't be able to pass an entirely rewritten article as FAC standard. Ceoil (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)