| Revision as of 16:33, 25 June 2024 editJohnbod (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Rollbackers280,316 edits remove usual personal attack, but I'm certainly not "one of the primary authors of this" so please carry onTag: Reverted← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:53, 26 June 2024 edit undoPeter Isotalo (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers22,553 edits Undid revision 1230953430 by Johnbod (talk)Tag: UndoNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| *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 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. ] (]) 12:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC) | *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 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. ] (]) 12:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :*As far as I know, ], 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. ] (]) 02:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC) | :*As far as I know, ], 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. ] (]) 02:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::I don't understand the logic in this. Is an FA review only a kind of re-hash of the original nomination process? Why can't we address these issues through a FAR? ] <sup>]</sup> 11:30, 25 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. ] (]) 12:26, 25 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. ] (]) 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.] (]) 15:25, 24 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.] (]) 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. ] (]) 02:58, 25 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. ] (]) 02:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::I'd like to caution against focusing too much on European expansion outside the Baltic, Mediterranean and the western part of the Atlantic; all of that happened basically at the very tail end of the Middle Ages and generally belongs to the ]. As a huge nerd of ]s, I've noticed a very strong tendency to treat anything afloat before the invention of ocean-going full-rigged vessels as technological dead ends or at best pre-cursors of "real" ships. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:53, 26 June 2024
Middle Ages
Middle Ages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
As of 26 December 2024, 02:05 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. A FAR coordinator will advance or close this nomination when consensus is reached.| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: Ealdgyth, Johnbod, Reddi, Adam Bishop, Middle Ages, European history, Visual arts, Military history, History , , , , , , , ,
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 (), 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 (). 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)
- 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)