This article is written in
British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Thanks to
Ltwin for starting this article. I have ticked it for the
NPP as it is obviously quite respectable. But it's unusual for articles to be so well-developed from the outset. Sometimes this is done by taking material from elsewhere such as another language Wikipedia. In such cases, attribution of the earlier versions is required for full propriety. I have made some spot checks using tools like
Earwig and didn't find any issues. But, to be sure, please could
Ltwin give some details of how they wrote this to help us understand what was done offline. Such background details may also help other reviewers as the article is further assessed and graded.
Andrew🐉(
talk) 10:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the details. Sometimes, editors move the sandbox into mainspace using the article title to preserve the edit history but I'm not seeing any problem with making a fresh copy in this case.
I plan to read through the article and may make minor copy-edits if needed -- I did one just now. If any major issues arise, I will start discussion here again.
This article is written in
British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Thanks to
Ltwin for starting this article. I have ticked it for the
NPP as it is obviously quite respectable. But it's unusual for articles to be so well-developed from the outset. Sometimes this is done by taking material from elsewhere such as another language Wikipedia. In such cases, attribution of the earlier versions is required for full propriety. I have made some spot checks using tools like
Earwig and didn't find any issues. But, to be sure, please could
Ltwin give some details of how they wrote this to help us understand what was done offline. Such background details may also help other reviewers as the article is further assessed and graded.
Andrew🐉(
talk) 10:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the details. Sometimes, editors move the sandbox into mainspace using the article title to preserve the edit history but I'm not seeing any problem with making a fresh copy in this case.
I plan to read through the article and may make minor copy-edits if needed -- I did one just now. If any major issues arise, I will start discussion here again.