Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Description of the Western Isles of Scotland/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Description of the Western Isles of Scotland[edit]

Featured list candidates/Description of the Western Isles of Scotland/archive1

Nominator(s): Ben Mac Dui 17:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list. I recognise it is far from a run-of-the-mill 'in popular culture' contribution and the archaic style of some of the language may stretch some reviewers but after a peer review I think it is ready. I notice that I seem to be the only nominator of a successful FL in the category of Archaeology - this one might be our first purely 16th century list. Ben Mac Dui 17:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~NB I may be off-line from Wednesday morning until Friday - definitely back by Saturday 16th November. Ben Mac Dui 21:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Resolved comments from Dudley Miles (Talk) 21:39 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

Quick comment

'See also' looks wrong. I would delete the template as it does not give the reader any useful information, and the book belongs in a 'Further reading' section, not 'See also', which is for Wikipedia articles. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for pointing this out. Fixed. Ben Mac Dui

Comments This a very good article, but I have some queries on points of detail.

"two chains of islands in Scotland". I would like a bit more on the location, such as "off the west coast of Scotland".

Done.

"who enjoyed the title of". This sounds a bit colloquial. I would prefer "known as".

It's a bit more complicated than that. Monro habitually added the title "Dean of the Isles" or even "High Dean of the Isles" to his name in documents but it is not at all clear that it was more than an honorific he invented for himself. R. W. Munro quotes a contemporary poet who poured scorn on this kind of practice by clerics. (He also styled himself "Sir Donald", which was standard practice for a priest in his position.) We don't actually know if he was "known as" Dean of the Isles.

Enjoyed the title seems to me to imply that he was known by that name. I would suggest leaving it out of the lead and adding where you state that he referred to himself as Dean of the Isles that it is not known whether he invented the title.

Another issue here is that Monro is often known in the modern era as "Dean Munro" and indeed many people with a casual knowledge of the topic will probably not even know that his given name is Donald. It therefore seems important to me to refer to this in the lead. (Someone moved the article about Monro the the present title a while ago and I have not (yet) taken the trouble to move it back to its previous title of "Donald Munro (Dean)". It could simply state that he "used" rather than "enjoyed" the title - and I have made that change.

"lived through complex...times" sounds a bit strange to me.

I fear it was strange for Monro himself. He started a career in one church, but finished it in another. When he joined the reformed church he was, despite having been a catholic Archdeacon, not considered fully qualified for the new ministry. For much of his working life, making the wrong choice could have had serious consequences and there is as suggestion that in the late 1560s he was attacked as "an outlaw rebel". The turning point of the Reformation was 1560 but it was a long and complex process, especially in the rural hinterlands distant from Edinburgh. In short, I am open to an alternative wording but the existing seems honest enough to me

I would leave out complex. "troubled times" says it all.

Done.

"a late 17th-century manuscript edited by Sir Robert Sibbald". I do not understand this. He cannot have edited a 17th century original. Did he edit a copy, and if so how, or did he make a copy of the original? I presume the latter as you say lower down that he made a complete transcript, but in that case it is confusing to say that he edited the manuscript. How is it known that it is complete if the original is lost?

Someone has recently edited this para and I'll need to take a close look.

I changed this to state that it was "written" by Sibbald.

Some explanation would be helpful of Lordship of the Isles. You say he gave an account of a judiciary body under it as if it still existed in his day, but below you say that Domhnall Dubh tried to resurrect it.

The third para of the Council of the Isles section does give a brief overview of the Lordship's demise in 1493. It had a 150 year history prior to that time that I am not sure needs much detailed description of here - can you say specifically what you think would be helpful?

I should have revised this when I read your overview below. I am not clear whether his account was historical or whether the judiciary body still existed in his time. If the latter perhaps add at the end of the lead something like "and continued after the demise of the Lordship in 1493."

I added "until its demise in the late fifteenth century" to the lead.

"occasional criticism". What was he accused of? (Minor comment but it would be interesting to know.)

I have tried to keep the biographical information to the essentials and this seems to be part of a slightly longer story (see 'complex times' above) but I agree this begs a question and I have added a Note.

"The Dean's command of Gaelic was weak and he habitually provides island names phonetically in English rather than using Gaelic spellings." Was he relying on monolingual Gaelic speakers for his information? If so, it would be helpful to spell this out.

We don't really know as he never tells us how he came about the information he wrote about. Certainly a large number of his parishioners would have been monolingual Gaels. One modern commentator (Matheson, 1963) seems to think he must have had enough Gaelic to perform his duties in that language but some of Monro's attempts are simply laughable - e.g. Ellan Inhologasgyr (for Eilean Loch Oscair), Ellan Nagonre (for Eilean nan Gabhar), Nahakersait (probably na h-acarsaid and not an island name at all).

It would be helpful if the name columns were sortable.

It would not be hard to do, but can you explain why it would be helpful?

It seems to be usual in lists to make columns sortable in order to make it easier for readers to find an item they are interested in, but I agree it is not important.

In Kirk Ile. "by implication it this islet in inner Loch Tarbert". There is a typo here.

Fixed

co-incidence does not have a hyphen in my dictionary.

Nor in mine. Fixed

One further point. Did he convert from Catholicism to Protestantism or was Scotland already Protestant by 1526 (or did the islands stay Catholic)? I ought to know but I don't, and I think it would be useful background.

1560 was the time of greatest change - it does say under "Author" that "Monro was admitted to the new ministry" but maybe this is too glib and some further explanation is needed?

You could perhaps say something like "Until 1560 the Scottish church was Catholic, but in that year it adopted the Protestant Confession of Faith" - if this is correct.

I honestly don't think this the place for a description of the complex process by which the Church of Scotland became the established church, so to clarify his position I have added that Monro "converted to Protestantism" - although many of his parishioners in the islands did not and some isles retain a majority of Catholics to this day.

Of course, these are just suggestions for you to use or ignore as you see fit.

Dudley Miles (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for you attention to the article - I will attend to the remaining issues asap. Ben Mac Dui 21:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now done. Ben Mac Dui 21:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A very good article. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your support and comments. Ben Mac Dui 08:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I had the pleasure of peer reviewing this article. My few, minor comments were addressed, and I said then and say again that this is a remarkable piece of work. It is a fine example of the value of Wikipedia: try finding anything else half as good on the web! I greatly enjoyed rereading it for this FLC. The lead is shorter than usual, but given the nature of the piece I think that's as it should be: no point in padding, and much of the info in the body of the text doesn't lend itself to précis-ing in the lead. The text is balanced, clear, well researched and referenced, in highly readable prose and clear tables, resourcefully laid out for readability and pleasingly illustrated. Meets all the FLC criteria, in my judgment. If I had been the author I think I might have put it up for FA rather than FL but I see the point. Either way, it deserves loud applause. – Tim riley (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks indeed. Ben Mac Dui 10:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – An impressive piece of work indeed, with much helpful descriptive detail. Well done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your support and attention to the article. Ben Mac Dui 16:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment: Avoid unwarranted capitalisation. "Modern Name" should probably be "Modern name", for instance. J Milburn (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see anything very specific in MOS about this and it looks a little odd to me to have only one word out of 13 uncapitalised in most of the tables but I've completed this. I can't see any word other than "name" in "Modern Name" that needs changing. Ben Mac Dui 08:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree there doesn't seem to be anything specific; I just can't see any reason to diverge from the usual guidelines on page/section titles. J Milburn (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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