Late Middle Ages was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The late middle ages were thought to be one of the worst times in history for many died and all suffered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.137.248.90 ( talk) 02:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
This is probably a stupid question, but could articles dealing with broad Western chronologies like this one incorporate some kind of overarching timeline template to contextualize epochs like "late middle," "early modern," "renaissance," "classical," relative to each other? I realize these terms aren't precise or rigorous, but they could still be depicted on a chart that would really help out users like me. :-)
I'd be happy to make and post this template if someone could wiki me up with the relevant periods, terminology, and dates. Cyrusc 21:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I know i am 13 years late but it would go something like this. Classical would be c.800BC-500AD (made up of Early Rome 800-500BC, Roman Republic 500-30BC and Roman Empire 30BC-500). Medieval would be 500-1500 made up of (early 500-950, high 950-1300 and late 1300-1500). Modern would be 1500 onwards with “early modern” being up to 1800 and the last two centuries being “late modern” where we are now ZillennialMedievalist ( talk) 00:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Basically, the article shows good attempts at research, but the research is poorly directed, because not enough time was spent with first reading up on the subject, in order to have a good idea of what was important to the era. I'd suggest, before continuing, to simply sit down and read three or four books on the subject, without thinking about the article. This will help give you an idea of the shape of the era, letting the important parts be identified.
Overviews are the hardest type of article to write. Because not enough time was spent in planning, this article is disorganised, jumping around between time periods without good reason. A chronological approach would assist in fixing this. This article gives short space to defining events like the Hundred Years War, the growth of artillery (still mainly archery throughout this time period - gunpowder had begun to be use, but wouldn't come into its own until a bit later). The development of armour, and so on. Huge space is given to Martin Luther, who is not in this period, whereas Gutenberg gets one sentence. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 22:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
There's a better way of dealing with this situation than simply relisting the article at WP:GAN. If you believe the article has been incorrectly failed, you can take it to WP:GAR, this circumvents the long back log at GAN. Nev1 ( talk) 14:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Late Middle Ages/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I am going to look over this article this afternoon. Charles Edward 18:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think any of these things will be too hard to address. The article is well written and marvelously referenced. If you address these issues the GA review should pass. This is a great article with a large scope. Good job so far! Charles Edward 18:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
1. It is well written:
(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
2.
(a} It is factually accurate and verifiable: it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;
(b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and
(c) it contains no original research.
3. It is broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. It is neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
5. It is stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. It is illustrated, if possible, by images:
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Overall.
An image used in this article,
File:Louis role.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
| |
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 11:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC) |
It seems this article is trying to describe non-European regions yet still remains Eurocentric. While it's good to avoid focusing on Western civilization in our history articles, I feel as though this particular article's subject (the Late Middle Ages) is really more a European subject. To put it bluntly, the Middle Ages and its sub-division are time periods in Europe and describing other regions beyond their relationship to Europe seems kind of irrelevant. It's noticeable that the Middle Ages, Early Middle Ages, and High Middle Ages articles do not expand beyond the Middle Eastern developments and at least one doesn't even really go that far. I suggest we merge the non-European information with their respective regions' history or a more global time period equivalent (i.e. the Postclassical Era). Any opinions? InvaderCito ( talk) 01:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
For anyone watching this article, the Timeline section is broken. As I'm not familiar with how timeline syntax works I'll leave a comment here. (but if I don't get a response in a couple of days I might take a crack at it!) Aza24 ( talk) 00:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Hey quick question. I noticed this article dates the late middle ages as dating from circa 1250-1500. Just from my observation, most books and sources i have seen date the late middle ages as starting from circa 1300, around the time the Templar Order was disbanded, the the Avignon Schism and the 1315 famine that officially started the “Crisis of the 14th century”. Do you think it would make sense to change the definition to circa 1300-1500 instead of 1250-1500 and if no what historical epoch should justify the approximate date remaining at 1250? Many thanks ZillennialMedievalist ( talk) 01:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
What do the rest of you think of this topic in 2021? To my mind, regardless of whether we use 1250, 1300 or even 1350, they are all estimations, so the best would be to give the rough date which is as close to a significant historical epoch that marks the "transition to a new age". To me, I propose changing the definition to "circa 1300-1500" due to the fact that most of the historical epochs use to mark the start of the Late middle ages happened around that time: such as the Siege of Acre (1291), the start of the medieval warm period (c. 1300), the burning of the templars (1314), the great famine (1315-17) and the Avignon Schism (1309). Do let me know! ZillennialMedievalist ( talk) 17:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Late Middle Ages was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The late middle ages were thought to be one of the worst times in history for many died and all suffered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.137.248.90 ( talk) 02:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
This is probably a stupid question, but could articles dealing with broad Western chronologies like this one incorporate some kind of overarching timeline template to contextualize epochs like "late middle," "early modern," "renaissance," "classical," relative to each other? I realize these terms aren't precise or rigorous, but they could still be depicted on a chart that would really help out users like me. :-)
I'd be happy to make and post this template if someone could wiki me up with the relevant periods, terminology, and dates. Cyrusc 21:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I know i am 13 years late but it would go something like this. Classical would be c.800BC-500AD (made up of Early Rome 800-500BC, Roman Republic 500-30BC and Roman Empire 30BC-500). Medieval would be 500-1500 made up of (early 500-950, high 950-1300 and late 1300-1500). Modern would be 1500 onwards with “early modern” being up to 1800 and the last two centuries being “late modern” where we are now ZillennialMedievalist ( talk) 00:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Basically, the article shows good attempts at research, but the research is poorly directed, because not enough time was spent with first reading up on the subject, in order to have a good idea of what was important to the era. I'd suggest, before continuing, to simply sit down and read three or four books on the subject, without thinking about the article. This will help give you an idea of the shape of the era, letting the important parts be identified.
Overviews are the hardest type of article to write. Because not enough time was spent in planning, this article is disorganised, jumping around between time periods without good reason. A chronological approach would assist in fixing this. This article gives short space to defining events like the Hundred Years War, the growth of artillery (still mainly archery throughout this time period - gunpowder had begun to be use, but wouldn't come into its own until a bit later). The development of armour, and so on. Huge space is given to Martin Luther, who is not in this period, whereas Gutenberg gets one sentence. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 22:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
There's a better way of dealing with this situation than simply relisting the article at WP:GAN. If you believe the article has been incorrectly failed, you can take it to WP:GAR, this circumvents the long back log at GAN. Nev1 ( talk) 14:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Late Middle Ages/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I am going to look over this article this afternoon. Charles Edward 18:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think any of these things will be too hard to address. The article is well written and marvelously referenced. If you address these issues the GA review should pass. This is a great article with a large scope. Good job so far! Charles Edward 18:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
1. It is well written:
(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
2.
(a} It is factually accurate and verifiable: it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;
(b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and
(c) it contains no original research.
3. It is broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. It is neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
5. It is stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. It is illustrated, if possible, by images:
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Overall.
An image used in this article,
File:Louis role.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
| |
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 11:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC) |
It seems this article is trying to describe non-European regions yet still remains Eurocentric. While it's good to avoid focusing on Western civilization in our history articles, I feel as though this particular article's subject (the Late Middle Ages) is really more a European subject. To put it bluntly, the Middle Ages and its sub-division are time periods in Europe and describing other regions beyond their relationship to Europe seems kind of irrelevant. It's noticeable that the Middle Ages, Early Middle Ages, and High Middle Ages articles do not expand beyond the Middle Eastern developments and at least one doesn't even really go that far. I suggest we merge the non-European information with their respective regions' history or a more global time period equivalent (i.e. the Postclassical Era). Any opinions? InvaderCito ( talk) 01:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
For anyone watching this article, the Timeline section is broken. As I'm not familiar with how timeline syntax works I'll leave a comment here. (but if I don't get a response in a couple of days I might take a crack at it!) Aza24 ( talk) 00:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Hey quick question. I noticed this article dates the late middle ages as dating from circa 1250-1500. Just from my observation, most books and sources i have seen date the late middle ages as starting from circa 1300, around the time the Templar Order was disbanded, the the Avignon Schism and the 1315 famine that officially started the “Crisis of the 14th century”. Do you think it would make sense to change the definition to circa 1300-1500 instead of 1250-1500 and if no what historical epoch should justify the approximate date remaining at 1250? Many thanks ZillennialMedievalist ( talk) 01:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
What do the rest of you think of this topic in 2021? To my mind, regardless of whether we use 1250, 1300 or even 1350, they are all estimations, so the best would be to give the rough date which is as close to a significant historical epoch that marks the "transition to a new age". To me, I propose changing the definition to "circa 1300-1500" due to the fact that most of the historical epochs use to mark the start of the Late middle ages happened around that time: such as the Siege of Acre (1291), the start of the medieval warm period (c. 1300), the burning of the templars (1314), the great famine (1315-17) and the Avignon Schism (1309). Do let me know! ZillennialMedievalist ( talk) 17:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)