![]() | England in the High Middle Ages has been listed as one of the
History good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: May 4, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from England in the High Middle Ages appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 5 June 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
This page contains some material from House of Plantagenet and England in the Middle Ages.-- SabreBD ( talk) 09:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I have edited the names of Richard I (1189-99) and John (1199-1216). Maymichael2 ( talk) 17:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on England in the High Middle Ages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tim O'Doherty ( talk · contribs) 17:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Looks like a well-written and thorough article to me
considered the first Angevin king of England- feels a bit long. Maybe just remove it and save it for the rest of the article.
and Henry making a dramatic exhibition of penance- Ditto
Walter Scott's location of Robin Hood in the reign of Richard I and his emphasis on the conflict between Saxons and Normans set the template for later fiction and film adaptations.- I'd suggest removing this too. It's a bit long and is already in "Popular representations"
Looking further down, the article seems to be well written. I can't fault the "Normans" section at all, it flows very well and is easy to understand for non-experts. The "Angevins" section I only have very minor criticisms of: Shouldn't "High King of Ireland" be fully capitalised as a MOS:JOBTITLE, rather than a description? I also don't really get this sentence: "In the 1160s the deposed King of Leinster Diarmait Mac Murchada turned to Henry for assistance in 1167, and the English king agreed to allow Diarmait to recruit mercenaries within his empire
". Shouldn't it read "The deposed King of Leinster Diarmait, Mac Murchada, turned to Henry for assistance in 1167; Henry allowed Diarmait to recruit mercenaries within his empire
", or something similar? Unless I'm missing something, "in the 1160s" and "in 1167" is tautology/contradiction. Lower down, shouldn't it be "what miserable drones[...]" instead, given that it's a phrase? "Revolt of 1173–1174" shouldn't have a capital letter either. I don't see anything obviously bad in the rest of the article; I think the "Popular representations" section is some particularly good prose. Other than some minor copyediting, and condensing the lead a bit, I think that this would pass the well-written requirement easily.
(Criteria marked
are unassessed)
The result was: promoted by
Lightburst (
talk)
18:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Unlimitedlead ( talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke ( talk) at 03:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/England in the High Middle Ages; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
![]() | England in the High Middle Ages has been listed as one of the
History good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: May 4, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from England in the High Middle Ages appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 5 June 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
This page contains some material from House of Plantagenet and England in the Middle Ages.-- SabreBD ( talk) 09:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I have edited the names of Richard I (1189-99) and John (1199-1216). Maymichael2 ( talk) 17:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on England in the High Middle Ages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tim O'Doherty ( talk · contribs) 17:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Looks like a well-written and thorough article to me
considered the first Angevin king of England- feels a bit long. Maybe just remove it and save it for the rest of the article.
and Henry making a dramatic exhibition of penance- Ditto
Walter Scott's location of Robin Hood in the reign of Richard I and his emphasis on the conflict between Saxons and Normans set the template for later fiction and film adaptations.- I'd suggest removing this too. It's a bit long and is already in "Popular representations"
Looking further down, the article seems to be well written. I can't fault the "Normans" section at all, it flows very well and is easy to understand for non-experts. The "Angevins" section I only have very minor criticisms of: Shouldn't "High King of Ireland" be fully capitalised as a MOS:JOBTITLE, rather than a description? I also don't really get this sentence: "In the 1160s the deposed King of Leinster Diarmait Mac Murchada turned to Henry for assistance in 1167, and the English king agreed to allow Diarmait to recruit mercenaries within his empire
". Shouldn't it read "The deposed King of Leinster Diarmait, Mac Murchada, turned to Henry for assistance in 1167; Henry allowed Diarmait to recruit mercenaries within his empire
", or something similar? Unless I'm missing something, "in the 1160s" and "in 1167" is tautology/contradiction. Lower down, shouldn't it be "what miserable drones[...]" instead, given that it's a phrase? "Revolt of 1173–1174" shouldn't have a capital letter either. I don't see anything obviously bad in the rest of the article; I think the "Popular representations" section is some particularly good prose. Other than some minor copyediting, and condensing the lead a bit, I think that this would pass the well-written requirement easily.
(Criteria marked
are unassessed)
The result was: promoted by
Lightburst (
talk)
18:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Unlimitedlead ( talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke ( talk) at 03:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/England in the High Middle Ages; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.