Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 12:15, 8 November 2024

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 1:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC) .

Middle Ages

Notified: Ealdgyth, Johnbod, Reddi, Adam Bishop, Middle Ages, European history, Visual arts, Military history, History , , , , , , , ,

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 (), 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)

@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)

Matarisvan

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".

• 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.

• 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)

Aza24

• 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:

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

• @Aza24: I expanded the article (). 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)

• More comments (mainly on music):
• The IB has AD 500 – 1500 but lead has 500 to 1500 AD. I'd think the AD placement should be consistent. Perhaps it should also be included once in the body, ideally in the "It customarily spans" sentence of Terminology.
• I added some more on late medieval music and a small tidbit on early. I think the main movements are all covered now. The High Middle Ages music is a bit limited, could use one more line talking about how the secular songs had regional variants, Troubadours/trouvère/Minnesang. – Aza24 (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review

@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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Comments

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)

@AirshipJungleman29: Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:27, 21 October 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  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. (). 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)

Airship

Apologies for the delay. Comments to follow.

I've spent some time comparing the current article with the old; I think overall there has been enough improvement to warrant a rewrite, notwithstanding the displeasure of the original authors who also put a lot into this article.My comments will naturally focus on those areas with which I am more familiar (which, not to blow my trumpet, is most of this), so some points of detail may go unexplored. With a view to length: 13,500 is of course quite long but justifiable with an article of this calibre—still, we should look to trimming more then adding, I think. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• I do like the structure, most of which seems to have been inherited from the previous version, but it was certainly a good choice to keep it. And a sources section! you know I like a good one of those.
• Has to be said that the lead is chunky: 625 words is on the top end for any FA. I think the third paragraph especially is slightly problematic—it reads not so much as a professional summary but instead a prosified bullet-point list. You don't have to summarise literally everything in the "High Middle Ages" section with equal weight. See what you can do.

I have given this a prune, as it seemed like no one else was going to. It may be over severe but it is certainly clearer. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Which states are mentioned in the lead? Western and Eastern Rome, Franks/Carolingians ... nothing in the High Middle Ages paragraph ... Ottoman Empire. I think that confirms, for me at least, that the third paragraph is too thematic-focused. I would expect at least the HRE to be mentioned.
• The new periodisation section is a definite improvement—the old "Development of the concept" subsection seems a little bit wasted space.
  • "to use tripartite periodisation" perhaps add a "this" before tripartite?
• You aren't certain whether the Middle Ages are singular or plural. For the former: "The Middle Ages is", "It customarily spans". For the latter: "the Middle Ages were often known".
  • "It customarily spans" certainly has no direct antecedent.
• "There is no universally-agreed-upon end date" this was just said; remove and start the sentence with "the most frequently..."
• It's an odd choice to start the sources section focusing on what we don't have, rather than what we do have.
• I don't know if three paragraphs on events before even 350 AD is necessarily WP:DUE; the "Later Roman Empire" section certainly seems quite overburdened.

As before, pruned, perhaps over severely but more in keeping I think. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

More to follow. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I have limited access to WP till the end of the week, so I will address them on Sunday. Borsoka (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I have no desire to participate further in this hostile FAR per this comment below. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:02, 5 November 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. Borsoka should open a fresh FAC with his new version and see how his bludgeoning tactics work there. Ceoil (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• You are talking about bludgeoning above. Does it mean that you could prove that the two huge archives where I indicated dozens of cases of unverified statements or statements representing marginal PoVs in the article's "FA" version (FA?) are basically incorrect? If this is the case, please do not hesitate to take me to ANI. The two of the three nominators who can still edit WP perhaps could assist you. Ping them. Borsoka (talk) 13:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Missing the point! You yourself have said that the article was (relatively recently, after you had made vast numbers of changes) unfit to be an FA. The version that actually passed FAC is gone, & there is no point in re-opening arguments over its merits. The issue is that the current version that replaced it is unreviewed, and the various points raised above, fine as far as they go, by no means amount to the "thorough and comprehensive new review" that you yourself said at the top here was needed. This FAR has now been open almost 4 months, without attracting any overall support for the current version, and there is no alternative to a Delist. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delist as per Ceoil and Johnbod. Notwithstanding the quality of the article itself it has been comprehensively changed since reaching FA and needs a thorough review. It is not getting that here with FAR so needs to go back through the FAC process. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes and regardless of Airship's late intervention, they are just one voice and POV. Resubmission at FAC is the only option. Ceoil (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• I am not going to declare a strict keep or delist, but given that the point of WP is to present information in the best possible, most thorough and palpable way, I don't see why an FA resubmission would be anything but helpful. It would bring a lot of eyes to the new draft and iron out any kinks. I don't think this version is too far from an FA anyways; it's certainly GA but just hasn't had the proper vetting/site-wide consideration that a subject this big requires. – Aza24 (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Its certainly the case that your and Airship's reviews are beneficial. Would like them to continue. Ceoil (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  It would seem Nikkimaria that we are close, or at least as close as we are likely to get, to consensus here. What do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Propose an extension so that Airship and Az's reviews play out. They are shaping up to be beneficial for a future FAC, although they shouldnt be allowed to move it over the line here it a step forward. Ceoil (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Ceoil—this is fair enough if these reviews were actually playing out, but they seem rather dormant. Perhaps AirshipJungleman29 and Aza24 could confirm whether they intend to return to this review. Furthermore, it appears that the nominator Borsoka is too busy to address any issues raised. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I do intend to continue, but if consensus is to delist for "procedural reasons" I might as well save my comments for the FAC.I wasn't aware however that you could delist an FA simply for having been rewritten—I thought the important thing was whether it met the FA criteria, and as far as I can see none of the !votes above have provided any evidence in that direction. If one of them could point me to a discussion outlining this type of "procedural" delist I would much appreciate it. Or is the argument that it has not met criterion 1e? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  Not really that (not met criterion 1e). Thanks to Borsoka's vigorous WP:OWNing, stability is the least of the problems here. Johnbod (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• I don't know if the situation has come up before, and am not going to research the matter - you could ask ask at FAC. Is there a precedent for passing an article like this? But FAR, obviously, is a rather light touch review process for articles that have passed the FAC process, and this one hasn't. Therefore we need an FAC, precisely to determine whether it meets the FA criteria; currently we just don't know. That doesn't seem conceptually difficult to me, and I'm not sure I would call it a "procedural reason". We shouldn't be "grandfathering" articles in. If the rather sparse FAR "rules" don't yet mention this, then they should. Johnbod (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, this review seems to be heading towards a pass by one person, AirshipJungleman29 (whose comments are being actioned only by Norfolkbigfish (since reverted) also an opposer), with comments on a narrow area by Aza24. That to me seems like falling through the cracks. If I were either of the editors arguing for keep here; I'd be punting towards FAC, for reputational and transparency reasons. Ceoil (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Johnbod off the top of my head unresolved precedents would be the war over Global warming, and Moors murders and the second FAR for Byzantine Empire. Ceoil (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I was mercifully unaware of these! Just looking at the last of them, Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_review/Byzantine_Empire/archive3 rather relevant to here, the high priestess of FAR, User:SandyGeorgia, was surely right to say at the start that a full new FAC was needed. But she didn't push for that, so over a year later, the process drifts on in a desultory fashion, that I think inspires no confidence that if the star is kept the article will deserve it. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Now also looked at Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Moors murders/archive1 (2019), at 74 kb too long and depressing to fully scrutinize if you don't know the article. Some similarities to here, including one of the original main authors. Several of WPs er stronger personalities involved, after a very major rewrite. It was delisted. I doubt I can face "the war over Global warming". Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, after reviews proved that the article did not (and potenially had never) met FA criteria. Borsoka (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I was busy, but I returned a couple of days ago. I have not addressed the issues because I have been waiting for the outcome of this intermezzo. As I mentioned before, I would accept any conclusion. However, so far this section looks like a private conversation among three editors who (as usual) come to an agreement without referring to any point of a relevant WP policy. Borsoka (talk) 10:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

There are no editors who are arguing for keep here because for the time being the normal process is being followed. Consequently, those who argue for a delist should refer to a single point in the relevant policies. Norfolkbigfish's "action" demonstrates the destructive consequences of ignoring our rules. By the way, the article was edited based on FAR comments. Borsoka (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

You can't play both sides here citing on the one hand that there are "no editors who are arguing for keep" while berating "those who argue for a delist" while reverting Norfolkbigfish. That's just embarrassing double-speak. Noting also your attempt to refracture the discussion by placing your reply to recent points after the days old "I was busy" ANI flu-type excuse. Ceoil (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't get your approach Borsoka, you are so knowledgeable, but obstinate at times, clearly a victory via FA is the best path here. Ceoil (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not play both sides: I have clearly stated, at least twice, that I will accept any outcome but I ask you to refer to a single point of relevant WP policies. Sorry, I do not understand what is the connection between my statement made some hours ago, and my revert of Norfolkbigfish's "edits" yesterday. (Please note those edits were reverted by an other editor as well .) I do not attempt to refracture the discussion in any way: I always try to place my comments where they are to be placed in context. I have several times explained you that it is not me who is here to fight or to have my victory. Borsoka (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

This comment is characteristically misleading. There were review comments unactioned since the 21st October, so in attempt to move these on I summarized the lead and another section as the comments suggested. No factual information was added. Both were reverted by the nominator. I attempted to summarize the Lead in another edit and followed with an edit to insert a space. The nominator then reverted the space edit, leaving the first edit in place. The subsequent editor then noticed this mistake, and reverted the first edit to be helpful. There is no evidence that this indicates support for the reverts, only of an editor rectifying an obvious mistake. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Please ping the editor who reverted your edit when assuming something about their motivation. Remsense, before reverting your edit, thanked the remarks I made about your edits on the article's Talk page. You (as it is not unusual) ignored my remarks before partially repeating your edits (that contain unverified claims and obviously false statements). Please also read the article's history before stating that any of my comments is misleading: I made several edits in accordance with comments by other reviewers (, ) in July and September. Borsoka (talk) 10:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Pinging the FAR co-ords Nikkimaria, Casliber and DrKay as this seems intractable and a matter of scope. Ceoil (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Borsoka I dunno at this stage, you are exhausting and given your use of double-hands, I'm bowing out for now least I talk my way into a block. The FAR coordinates are typically even-handed, and I will leave it to them; I'm as likely to get as hammered as you but at least a precedent will be set. Ceoil (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Since there have been demands for specific issues based on the Misplaced Pages:Featured article criteria, let's do that:

1)It is:

"a) well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;" - untested by full review. Numerous relatively minor issues with idiom and vocab are normally found by Borsoka's reviewers.

"b) "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;"- untested by review. There have been significant changes here

"c) "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;" - almost certainly NOT based on "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", though that is a huge demand here. As usual on large subjects that are not on his main stomping ground of Central/Eastern Europe, Borsoka tends to pick a single source, not always of top quality, and stick with it.

"d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;" - untested by full review. Very probably there are issues here, suggested by the direction of some of Borsoka's changes.

"e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process;" - untested by full review. Borsoka's vigorous reverting of almost all changes keeps it relatively stable.

"f) compliant with Misplaced Pages's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing". - untested by full review.

• Criteria 2-4 are also untested by a full review. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• (1) (ad b): I think the article was without doubt improved from this perspective. For instance, your version of the article did not mention Cyril and Methodius, Cyrillic script, Old Church Slavonic, the Khazars, Mount Athos, the Arab sieges of Constantinople, Arianism and Bogumilism, and almost completely ignored the history of Scandinavia, Central Europe, Eastern Europe and the Balkans.
• (2) (ad c): Please compare the bibliography of your and this version, and you will be surprised how many specialised new sources were introduced. Indeed, I expanded the article with facts about the history of Central and Eastern Europe, Scandinavia and the Balkans, because one of the weakest part of your version was its almost total ignorance of the history of large regions of Europe (together with obviously false statements, for instance about a powerful high medieval Poland). In addition of using some more general sources (such as Barber's cited book) to improve coverage of Central and Eastern Europe, I introduced the following specific sources: (1) *Curta, Florin (2019). Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages (500–1300), Volume I. Brill's Companion to European History. Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-41534-8. (your version referred to Curta's work about the history of Southeastern Europe); (2) Fine, John V. A. (2009) . The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest. The University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-08260-5.; (3) Grzymała-Busse, Anna (2023). Sacred Foundations: The Religious and Medieval Roots of the European State. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-6912-4508-9.; (4) Sedlar, Jean W. (1994). East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000–1500. A History of East Central Europe. Vol. III. University of Washington Press. ISBN 978-0-295-97290-9. Which one would you qualify as not of top quality? On the other hand, I stopped referring to sources of questionable quality extensively used in your version.
• (3) (ad d): Examples?
• (4) (ad e): If you read the article's history, you will find dozens of edits made by other editors that I did not revert because they improved the article. For instance, this case shows that I willingly accepted all suggestions that were verified. (In addition, it also indicates that other editors also realised that your version contained debatable statements.) Yes, I reverted most of your reverts, but I always explained my action. For instance, when you reverted my edit () because you seem to have (wrongly) associated the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church with the Roman Empire's ecclesiastic structure and (also wrongly) thought that the Desert Fathers lived in Syria as well, I asked you to explain your action before reverting your revert.
• (5) Sorry, I began not to understand what you want. You are saying that nothing is tested by full review although two editors (Airship and Matarisvan) stated above that they were ready to complete a full review. From the start, you want to prevent them from completing the full review. Similarly, Norfolkbigfish wants to delist the article without a review, but is obviously ready to edit it in accordance with Airship's suggestions during the review. You both should decide what you want.
• (6) Again, I have always wanted to improve articles not to collect badges, so I am ready to restore your version and initiate a new FAR. I could, in a couple of day, list the unverified statements, misinterpreted facts, marginal PoVs that should be fixed in order to keep its FA status. As you are a native English speaker, I think you do not need more than a month to fix all of them, and coverage could be imporved based on my text. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

For 3d, you ask for examples. One significant one, affecting various parts of the article, you boast about yourself: what one might call the drift to the East, bulking up material on Central and Eastern Europe, and to some extent reducing it on France and the British Isles. I'm not saying that some or all of this is a bad thing necessarily, but it amounts (over a number of touches in different places) to a significant shift in the article, and is the sort of thing that should be given the consideration only a full review is likely to achieve. I'm aware there's been a trend along these lines in recent Anglophone history writing, but there is a balance to reach between this and what a preponderance of RS in English cover, and what views on more specific articles show our readers are interested. Johnbod (talk) 03:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Yes, I reduced materal on England (for instance, we do not need to know in the article's context that the Black Prince was named for his black armour), but expanded coverage on the British Isles by mentioning some relevant details of the medieval history of Ireland and Scotland (I refer to the first sentence of section "New kingdoms and Byzantine revival", footnote 17, and the last sentence in the second paragraph of section "State resurgence"). I also expanded the text with highly relevant details of the history of the Iberian Peninsula, Scandinavia and Italy (I refer to sections "Rise of state power" and "State resurgence"). Less than 1,700 words are dedicated to the history of Eastern and Central Europe and the Balkans, that is less than 13% of the article's size. I think this is quite modest, and it is fully in line with the approach followed by several books about the period's general history published in English and cited in the article (Barber, Bartlett, Collins, etc). Borsoka (talk) 04:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Another POV example is your removal (which someone else mentions near the top) of the sentence "According to art historian C. R. Dodwell, "virtually all the churches in the West were decorated with wall-paintings", of which few survive.". Your comment when this was raised, which I find totally bizarre, was "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." Frankly, who are you to dismiss Dodwell, a very distinguished specialist? So you decided to just remove all reference to wall-painting? There's POV for you. Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I removed a PoV statement. Now the article contains a factual statement about early medieval paintings in the west: "Paintings have mostly survived in richly-decorated Gospel Books, including the Book of Kells and the Lindisfarne Gospels—two examples of the Insular art of Ireland and Northumbria." Of course, the article also contains a statement about religious art in general: "Religious art quickly assimilated several elements of secular style, such as strapwork ornamenting and extensive segmentation." Borsoka (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC) Dodwell is not "dismissed" because he is cited in the article. If neutrality issue is mentioned, why do you think Dodwell's PoV is the only relevant important PoV in the article's context? Or, to paraphrase your wors "who are you to only emphasise Dodwell's PoV and ignore dozens of other historians?" I think such a comprehensive article cannot contain PoVs, but only facts. Borsoka (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Could you clarify what you're proposing here? Is it your suggestion to revert back to the version prior to your edits, and start a new FAR on that? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, I am ready to revert back to that version, start a new FAR and list all the problems, provided that at least one of the two nominators or an other knowledgeable editor is ready to fix all of them in order to prevent delisting. I think this will be a time consuming process, because that version does not meet FA criteria 1b-1c, 2a and 3, problematic sentences abound and coverage should significantly be improved. Borsoka (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Wow, you do love a WP:BATTLEFIELD! I don't know if this was a serious suggestion, but I'm sure I'm not the only one to find it deeply unappealing, having been through the Crusades etc. You've said many times before, and just now, that the old version was unfit to be FA, so a delist should precede any such revert. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• If you want to read a good example of battleground mentality, read your friend's text below (). You can also read your mainly baseless reverts and your and Ceoil's personal attacks in the article's history and in the archives, or during this review. Similis simili gaudet ("Like rejoices in like"). Do you refer to this FA review of the Crusades? It was closed by the following notes : "Okay, we've left this open two-and-a-half months, way more than we generally do, because it was a big article that needed lot of commentary, and not so long ago it looked like we were on track for consensus for promotion. That's not the case now, issues being raised by new reviewers and the prospect of the nom dragging on still longer. I hope that the Borsoka, Johnbod and Lingzhi with continue to work with the nominator on the outstanding points via article talk, after which you could ping previous reviewers for another look, and renominate." It was also a substandard article, nominated by Norfolkbigfish. I am ready to restore the old FA version after a delist as well if you are ready to edit it. Borsoka (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Sequence restored for you Johnbod-apologies, intention was to make it more, rather than less coherent. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The present version of the article does not meet the FA criteria in a number of fundamenatal aspects. They are:

1. 1. It is not well-written, the prose isn't engaging or of a professional standard;
   2. while comprehensive, not neglecting any major facts or detail it does not place the subjects in context;
   3. the current situation means it is not stable
2. Length. It is too long and it doesn't focus on the main topics, but instead enters into unnecessary detail. It doesn't use summary style where appropriate. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

1a. As a non native English speaker I cannot comment this, but none of the editors who already reviewed the article mention it as a problem above. 1b. What do you mean? The article was expanded with sentences about the common features of the period, and also with text explaining its long-time effects and heritage (I refer to the 3rd paragraph of section "Terminology and periodisation", the first paragraph of section "Rise of state power", and the last paragraph of section "Modern perceptions and historiography"). What further info do you need? 1e. Why do you think that edits made to implement reviewers' suggestions indicate that the article is not stable? Or do you refer to the revert of your not unusually highly problematic edit ? Read your version of section "Background". 2. Are you kidding? The version of Crusades () that you nominated for FA contained 12,535 words, while this article covering a 1,000-year-long period, including the crusades, contain 13,360 words. In addition, Johnbod's FA version of the article contained 14,349 words (), although it provided almost no information about the history of large regions of Europe (Scandinavia, Central and Eastern Europe and the Balkans). So I shortened the article by nearly 7% although I expanded its relevant content. Of course, the article could be shortened during the FAR, and I already started to shorten it weeks ago. Borsoka (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, no other editor has touched on the prose apart from @Johnbod and @AirshipJungleman29 in his truncated review. Simply put, as the article is currently written, there is no narrative flow and too many random details dropped into the text because they are considered to be too important to leave out while there isn't space to put them into context. It doesn't cover the topic in a way that is easy to find or read. Most readers only want/need a quick summary or a moderate amount of information. If they want more each of the Periods early, high and late Middle Ages have articles (albeit B and C class that could do with improvement) and there are a number of chunky medieval topics that already have their own articles. The notes are just clutter. It is crying out for a good prune and application of WP:SummaryStyle. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish, those are about the vaguest criticisms it is possible to muster while still remaining coherent. Might you have courtesy to provide some evidence of your assertions? You know, like an actual review? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Again (and again, and again), I am sure that this article (as all FACs and FARs) could and should be shortened, perhaps even radically. However, in sharp contrast with Norfolkbigfish's above statements, I think the article has significantly been improved in regard to context in comparison with the previous version (). Just some examples: (1) Section "Sources" now explains how available sources have potentially distorted our understanding of the period. (2) Section "Trade and economy" was slightly modified to give a short explanation of the background to changes in the system of currencies. (3) The new versions of sections "Architecture and art" clarify how different artistic traditions influenced each other to merge into new styles durng the Early Middle Ages, or what factors entailed the development of Romanesque and Gothic architecture. (4) Section "Economic revival" now introduces the high medieval "commercial revolution", and its economic background. (5) Section "Collapse of Byzantium and rise of the Ottomans" shortly explains the reasons of the weakening of Byzantine power and the rise of the Ottomans. (6) Section "Scholars, intellectuals, and exploration" now clarifies the reasons of the beginning of exploration. Borsoka (talk) 05:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

It may well come to me providing a review @AirshipJungleman29, but I am holding off at least until some consensus is reached on next steps at this FAR. Much as it it appears you are yourself. For me the only way forward is for the article to be delisted now and if @Borsoka so desires he can renominate. It will attract more reviewers and get a more thorough fairer review. Undoubtedly this FAR has failed and needs to be put out of its misery.

In the interim I will share my thoughts on the Sources section above. Because in microcosm this illustrates why this article is not at FA standard, if indeed it ever was. Firstly, it is not really a Sources section at all. It doesn't emphasise the key meta-sources the period e.g. Manuscripts and Chronicles, Religious Writings and Church Records, Literature and Epic Poetry, and finally Illuminated Manuscripts and Iconography. In addition there are those derived from archeology such as Architecture and Monuments, Artifacts and Everyday Items and Graves and Burial Sites.

It also doesn't touch on more specific sources such as Book of Kells, Tres Riches Heures du Duc de Berry, Bede, Ecclesiastical History of the English People, Matthew Paris, Jean Froissart, Magna Carta, Capitulary of Charlemagne, Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Divine Comedy, Dante Alighieri, Beowulf and The Song of Roland to name just a few, others are available.

It also lacks coherence. It seems to be a confusion of a sources section and a historiography section, the lack of which is a glaring ommission in the article. Adding all this would add significantly to the word count to an article that is already too large, and too challenging to digest for readers with light to moderate interest in the topic. It would need Wp:Summary, an additional Historiography section perhaps using the the confusingly named main article Dark Ages (historiography) and maybe an additional article Primary Sources of the Middle Ages.

The thing is, this is just one section. There are multiple instances in the article where this process would need to be repeated. It is for this reason that a simple delist now is the only sensible alternative. FAR is not the appropriate place for that amount of reviewing for an article this complex. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: you should decide what is your problem: the lack of summary style or the lack of details. Section "Sources" presents the major types of written sources as they are summarized by a leading medievalist: annals, chronicles and other narrative sources, documents of state and church administration (royal charters and chrysobulls), grafitti, seals, and letters. In addition, the section also mentions images and sculptures. The list covers everything you mentioned above from "Manuscripts and Chronicles" to "Iconography". Sorry, but I must raise the question: are you sure you understand the terms you are using? From among the specific sources you listed above as missing, the article refers to the Book of Kells, Tres Riches Heures du Duc de Berry, Bede, Aquinas and his Summa, Dante, Beowulf, The Song of Roland, Magna Carta. In addition, among specific sources, the article also refers to birch bark letters, sagas, the flourishing Old Church Slavonic religious literature, El Canto de Mio Cid, chivalric romance, autobiographies, works by erudite nuns, the Constitutions of Melfi, the Siete Partidas, etc. You are right, the article does not name the Ecclesiastical History of the English People (only refers to it), Matthew Paris, Jean Froissart, Charlemagne's Capitulary. However, neither does it mentions the Chronicle of Alfonso III, the Primary Chronicle, or the chronicle by Theophanes the Confessor, the Annals of Fulda, and dozens (or rather hundreds) of other important medieval annals, chronicles, romances, laws, etc.. Do you really think that the article should list all sources of the period?? Borsoka (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC) Please also read the last section before requesting a Historiography section (it was me who expanded the article covering historiography). You are obviously making comments without reading the article. I think I am not the only editor thinking that your "review"/comments/edits on this page are not helpful (). I am blessed that you are not my friend. Borsoka (talk) 11:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The Middle_Ages#Modern_perceptions_and_historiography would be better renamed just Historiography. It is also not of a FA standard. It contains WP:UNDUE quotes and sentences on whether the Earth was thought to be flat or not but does not follow a coherent structure of how the historiography developed e.g., Renaissance to Enlightenment, 19th century Romanticism and Nationalism, late 19th – early 20th Century professionalisation of History, the Feudalism debate, 20th century Annales School and Social History, late 20th century reevaluation and expansion and through to today with digital Humanities and interdisciplinary approaches.

Yes, many of these facts are in the article and also sourced but they are not presented methodically or summarised well enough to be meaningfully understood by the lay reader. Simply put it fails to meet FA criteria 1a and 1b. All that is being suggested here is possible approaches to meet those criteria. Whether you choose to take this advice, or take different approaches, is up to you but if you wish to pass a FA review these are problems that need addressing. That is before getting to WP:TOOBIG. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Facts can be presented in several ways. For instance, the article provides a very general picture of the period's sources and their relevance and weaknesses in a separate section, then presents specific sources in each subsection, because these works were not only sources, but important representatives of early, high or late medieval art, legislation, intellectual life, etc. What alternative coherent structure would you recommend? In this respect, the article's structure did not change to much (I wrote a section about sources, and added sources from Iberia, Scandinavia, and the Balkans). So you should discuss the structure with the original nominators, such as Johnbod as well. You should also discuss the WP:UNDUE issues with them because the "Modern perceptions" part was radically shortened by myself in comparison with their version. All the same, I fully agree with them that we need to cover modern perceptions, especially the one about flat earth. As to historiography, I again had to raise the question: do you want summary style or a comprehensive study. For the time being, the section summarises the most important trends in medieval historiography as they are presented in two specialised works written by two respected medievalists. We are not here to present our views, as per WP:NOR. Please read the article and familarise yourself with relevant literature before continuing your comments and demanding edits. Borsoka (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

All interesting issues for the new FAC. There is no point in reviewing stuff you have removed! Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Please read it again: it is about what I did not remove: flat earth. Borsoka (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Likewise! Eg "....You should also discuss the WP:UNDUE issues with them because the "Modern perceptions" part was radically shortened by myself in comparison with their version." Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Please, again: "It contains WP:UNDUE quotes and sentences on whether the Earth was thought to be flat or not..." Do you think your reference to flat earth should be deleted or not. I would keep it. Borsoka (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

As I've told you, many times, I actually wrote very little of the version that passed FAC - essentially the art sections and touches elsewhere. Yet you have insisted throughout in personalizing your attacks on that version, which are in any case now completely irrelevant. Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

As @Johnbod writes above all interesting issues for the new FAC. Article is still short of criteria 1a, 1b and 4. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

This is not personalization. When one looks at your Talk page, they will find a FA badge on it for the article's 2013 FA version without any caveat or stipulation. As one of your co-nominators was banned from our community, the other withdrew from the review even before it actually began, you are the only nominator still active. Since th 2013 FA version also contained the text sharply criticised by Norfolkbigfish, I again seek your opinion on their proposal. Take responsability for the text for which you have been proudly wearing a badge. Again, I would keep the text. Please also take responsibility for the sources of the same version of the article. Norfolkbigfish claims that four sources should have been introduced to improve it, and one of them is specifically a source about the history of art. Do you think the four sources would have been or are useful? I think they are not needed to improve the article. Borsoka (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

You keep going back to the 2013 version, but that is not what we are looking at here. As it happens, I did look at it, I think for the first time during this review, to follow up your bizarre remark about C. R. Dodwell, which I've commented on above. Having reverted almost every edit I've made to the article since you came on the scene several years ago, you now demand I "take responsibility" for details of that long-vanished version that I didn't write and can't remember even reading. Guess what, I won't. Ernst Gombrich The Story of Art is a classic that's always worth looking at, but there are other much fuller books, including Dodwell (who I did add all those years ago). When the article is delisted, I expect I will take the star off my page. In fact, on a quick look, most of what I actually wrote myself seems intact - let's face it, art isn't really your area, is it? Johnbod (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, art is not my area. Even so, I experienced that sections about art in the 2013 FAC version contained unverified claims (for instance, here and here; in the second case you were referring to an other WP article to verify the text in the 2013 FAC version, although that article contained a false reference). Borsoka (talk) 04:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

In addition the sources the article uses seem to be of variable quality. I would suggest the following could be useful to anyone taking this on:

• Marc Bloch Feudal Society for medieval social structures, economies, and the feudal system.
• Barbara Tuchman A Distant Mirror for a narrative account of the 14th century, covering themes like the Black Death and the Hundred Years’ War.
• Georges Duby The Age of the Cathedrals for medieval society’s transformation, focusing on agriculture, urbanization, and the economy.
• Ernst Gombrich The Story of Art to contextualize medieval art within broader cultural developments.

While I am at it Peters is mentioned in the References section but isn't used. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: could you name some of the sources of lower quality? I suggest you should discuss the lack of the specific sources you listed above (Bloch, Tuchman, Duby, Gombrich) with the original nominators, such as Johnbod because they also ignored them. Sincerely, I would not refer to any of those sources in the article either. For instance, Tuchman's book is an excellent source for the history of the 14th century, but not for an article about the Middle Ages; the feudal system is mentioned in the article, but the article also emphasise that feudalism was not the dominant structure in all over Europe. Borsoka (talk) 11:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

But you do mention Bloch, explicitly by name, and link to his WP article? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, because of his role in historiography. I cannot imagine a historiography without a reference to him. I also mention Aquinas, but I do not cite him. Borsoka (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Those criticisms are nonsensical and openly disrespectful, Norfolkbigfish. You argue that there are "too many random details dropped into the text because they are considered to be too important to leave out" while simultaneously condemning the exclusion of a legion of titles? You show that you have not even read the article fully by proclaiming that "the lack of is a glaring ommission "? You contradict yourself within the same comment, saying that the details you think aren't included would actually complicate things for readers and need to be spun off to a different article—well how about you go work on that then?In one respect though, you have managed to be correct. I have been holding off, but in the hope that I might see a modicum of courtesy from fellow editors. That has not come, and instead we see more tendentious disrespect like the above. I have not the time, will or energy to take an active role in such a quarrelsome campaign. Borsoka, I am sorry that I must withdraw to leave you to face the strident voices alone—but for me your reputation remains intact. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Or maybe you don't want to be the sole reviewer supporting this pass; you were encouraged, though I get that that that would be a heavy responsibility. Ceoil (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Yes, Norfolkbigfish is quite obviously taking a vengeance of me for having failed or delisted their especially substandard GANs and FACs (, , , ). They are unable to accept that blatant plagiarism, original research and the promotion of one single scholar's PoV are totally incompatible with quality. I think their substandard and incoherent comments and apparent incapability to response my remarks speak for themselves. I can face strident voices. :) Sooner or later the storm will be over. Meanwhile, I have begun or completed some interesting reviews and I am working to improve an interesting article. Borsoka (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Borska, you once again missing the point. I for one want this article to in some venue retain its star and be something the project can be proud of. But nonetheless its not reviewed in its current state at present, you have acted aggressively against any reviewer save AirshipJungleman who has now has bowed out. What do you honestly expect from here; please please please submit at FAC where you will get a far better and less cranky spin at the wheel, where everybody would more geared up for a promotion .Ceoil (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

No, you are missing the point: you are preventing other editors from completing their reviews and you are suggesting something without referring to any point of our relevant policis. People usually learn in Kindergarten that the method "I want" can hardly work in human communities. Borsoka (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I took myself to the ANI on your behalf (). You have been accusing me of several forms of misconduct, but failed to take me to the ANI. Your frequent assumptions about other editors' hidden agendas speak for themselves. Borsoka (talk) 03:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

All of the behavioural concerns and accusations on all "sides" above should be removed to ANI or another suitable venue; this is not such a venue. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, Borsoka has opened up Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. It's a pity the FAR delegates have been so passive and not ruled as that this was a test case has been obvious for weeks, and endless bickericking has been allowed with no guidance or openions. Ceoil (talk) 03:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, you are accusing an other editor, now of negligence. Please remember this revert of one of your usual personal attacks () and the subsequent message on your Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Well see how that pans out. It did seem odd that she took a position, although I replied politely, but my point stands. It seems like you are bullying through, and if FAR is going to now favour rewrites after a bare review; grand but to hell with FAR then as a process then

. Ceoil (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

You know you could just accept that your completely rewritten artice could face FAC on its merits. Its seem like you just enjoy the fight and causing trouble, rather than take the approach 99% of other people would take. Ceoil (talk) 03:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but your "obey my demand" approach is boring. I have never experienced it in a healthy working environment. You obviously have not realised that nine editors have commented on the FAR so far, and only three of them propose a delist. Borsoka (talk) 04:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, almost 4 months, and 79,000 bytes, and no one has yet said the star should be kept (except on the image review). Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

And no review has proved that the star should be removed. As a compromise, I again offer you to restore the version before I started editing this article. You could work for your star. Borsoka (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

We're not really in the business of "proof", a typical giveaway of your mindset. I will be commenting further on "Dodwellgate", which goes a good way to proving how shoddy your approach to sources is. Would you agree to delisting before a reversion, and if not, why not? Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, "do this because I want it" is hardly the best approach. Three editors bullied all other editors who had been ready to review this article into a withdrawal: one of the Triumvirs has been repeating their will to delist without citing a single community rule or precedent substantating this demand; the second acts like Don Quijote's parody fighting for their Dulcinea without any attempt to do anything else than attacking me; and I will not mention the third one because I could only use extremly negative adjectives to describe their abilities to edit or review articles. I am curious about your argumentation: why do you think that there is one single scholar whose PoV about a relatively minor issue (frescoes in early medieval churches) is so prominent that it should be mentioned in the article? Borsoka (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

This is all just deflection and distraction. This is a Featured article removal candidate (FARC) because you nominated at FAR, and after much debate an admin moved it to this stage. Three editors have declared delist. No editors have declared keep. There has been no effort to overcome the article's deficiencies. In fact there has been a marked resistance to any change whatsoever. Full reviews from multiple editors would be broadly welcomed, but it appears this is now unlikely, if indeed it was ever possible at FAR and FARC. As such it appears this FAR has failed in whatever purpose it was intended to achieve. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

None of you three have reviewed the article. You made comments without reading the article, as it is stated by a reviewer whom your obviously biased agenda convinced to abandon their review. Stop repeating that no action was taken by me because I added links above proving that your statement is not true. If your "delists" are taken into account, a precedent is set for aggressive negligent reviewers to prevent a FAC. Borsoka (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

It remains the case that not a single editor has declared keep, and it is unlikely that an editor will. This is not a FAC, that is the point @Johnbod has made repeatedly, it is a FAR. This is a far lighter process that is unsuitable for the amount of change this article has undergone over recent years. It needs a number of robust reviews. It would be unusual, if not unprecedented, for an article that already has FA status to be represented at FAC and for this reason alone it makes sense to delist here and then represent at FAC. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I have several times experienced during the years that you tend to edit, review and comment without reading, but please read the three precedents listed above. They contradict your assumption. Borsoka (talk) 10:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

What "three precedents" do you mean? Is it Ceoil's "unresolved precedents would be the war over Global warming, and Moors murders and the second FAR for Byzantine Empire"? I'm amazed if you can draw encouragement from them. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

But I can, as I explicitly mentioned above. They prove that reviews are needed. Borsoka (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

There were no assumptions above, just objective facts. Apart from the attempt to insult. it is not clear to me what your point is here. What exactly is you objection to delisting, closing this FAR and resubmitting to FAC? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

"...if not unprecdented" is an assumption which proved to be false. I will not repeat my arguments. Read them above. Borsoka (talk) 10:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Well that is not an assumption, much more a question, and if there there is a precedent of an article with FA status being submitted to FAC I am sure everyone would be happy to be given it. In addition it would help anyone reading this thread, particularly if anyone new should come to it, if you would kindly summarise what your objections to delisting this article, closing this FAR and resubmitting the article to FAC. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.