Wikipedia:Peer review/Scotland in the High Middle Ages/archive1

Scotland in the High Middle Ages[edit]

I am the main author of this article, and I'm wishing to receive instructive guidelines on how to further improve this article. It is very comprehensive and already fulfills many criteria, but is slightly long. What exactly to cut, I'm not entirely sure. Critical review is needed. - Calgacus 05:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is too short, should be expanded. preferably by merging the material from Overview section into it (lead is supposed to be summary/overview after all). You may want to create at least stubs for red links at {{History of Scotland}} so it looks better. ToC is somewhat long, but as you have templates and pictures to fill the empty space, I presonally don't mind. At 104kb lenght, this is indeed long; again, I wouldn't mind but my experience shows other do, so consider creating subarticles and moving some content there. Pictures would be nice especially for the first half. Inline citation use is impressive. I can see this becoming a FAC after this PR. Good job.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Piotrus. Table of Contents is rather messy, you're right. Some of the red links cover some pretty obscure topics. I've been creating new stubs for these already (yes, there were more red links). I'll take your advice on this one, create new stubs, and remove red links when there is no possibility of doing this. What size do you think could be acceptable, baring in mind it's best to keep it as I can? :) - Calgacus 23:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read it yet, but I plan on doing it. In the meantime, two things. First, it is not slightly long, it is very long. :-) It is recommended that articles be broken when they reach 32kb. This one has three times that value. Also, why isn't the title Scotland in the high middle ages, according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions? JoaoRicardo^talk 22:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping. High Middle Ages is a proper noun. I never checked the wikipedia Wikipedia:Naming conventions for this when I named it, but I have now, and can't see anything that tells me the current title is not in convergence; but I did name the article after the fashion of related articles, such as Spain in the Middle Ages, Britain in the Middle Ages, High Middle Ages (to which High middle ages is a redirect), etc. I think reducing it to 32kbs would be counter productive; the reference section alone takes up a huge proportion of that. I've seen featured articles that are double the 32kbs length. What do you think would be an acceptable reduction? Is it possible to create a daughter article for the bibliography (I'm serious)? - Calgacus 23:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calgacus, I wasn't aware that "High Middle Ages" is usually treated as a proper noun. Sorry. In that case, I think nothing's wrong with the title. There have been suggestions to place long sources as subpages, to free up space in the article itself, but these have not gained consensus yet. Check the WikiProject Fact and Reference Check for discussions on this, and see this section in particular. JoaoRicardo^talk 14:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was forced to split Polish-Soviet War a year ago for it to pass the FAC voting. I don't think the criteria changed since then, and people will probably object due to lenght. Regreatable IMHO but that's the standard here (one of the few I disagree with).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I did a lot more work on the article based on the suggestions made. I nominated it for the featured article status, here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Scotland in the High Middle Ages. Thank you JoaoRicardo and Piotrus. All the people who I know here that know something about the topic have said the article is great. So, if it ain't gonna get featured status unless it gets down to the 30-40 regions, then I don't wanna waste my time. I cut about 35kbs off it already. If I really had to, I could probably get rid of another 15 or so, but it would really hurt the article's quality, so it probably wouldn't get featured anyway. - Calgacus 04:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]