Wikipedia:Featured article review/Middle Ages/archive1: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:25, 3 November 2024

Middle Ages

Featured article candidates/Middle Ages/archive1

Featured article review/Middle Ages/archive1

Notified: Ealdgyth, Johnbod, Reddi, Adam Bishop, Middle Ages, European history, Visual arts, Military history, History [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it was heavily edited, partially rewritten and slightly restructured for various reasons since 23 December 2021 ([10]), so it needs a thorough and comprehensive new review. Borsoka (talk) 03:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the broad structure, it seems worth bringing up for discussion that the article seems structured as three separate topics rather than a single one, being set up as a summary of each period (Early, High, Late). There are 3 society subsections, 3 military and technology subsections, and 3 Art and Architecture sections. This gives the impression that the three periods are quite distinct with little connecting the historical division as a whole. This may be true (within usual historical fuzziness, although but then why is there only a two-fold division in Romance historiography?), but if so I'd expect something a bit more explicit about such disjunctions in Terminology and periodisation. Aside from that discussion, overall, it does not appear at an initial read through that the quality has obviously decreased since the linked version. Perhaps worth a note that the new version calls highlights a single historian (Miri Rubin) in Terminology and periodisation, while removing the highlighting of C. R. Dodwell in the second Art and architecture subsection. Best, CMD (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. (1) I did not touch the main structure of the article because it has been stable for more than a decade ([11]). I think the article follows a quite common scholarly practice, as its structure is based on chronology instead of topics. This is fully in line with most of the cited books. As I also noticed that the article failed to explain why the Middle Ages is discussed as one period in scholarly literature, I expanded it with two sentences about the period's main characteristics (I refer to the third paragraph in section "Terminology and periodisation"). If we ignore these common characteristics, we can indeed conclude that the three subperiods were quite distinct, as it is presented in the article. On the other hand, the article (I hope) also presents the links between the subperiods. (2) The sentence containing a reference to Dodwell presented his PoV about frescoes in churches in the west. As I prefer facts and wanted to expand the article about details of Orthodox architecture and art, I deleted the PoV sentence, and added a sentence about Balkan church architecture. (3) Miri Rubin is primarily named because I preferred to quote her words instead of paraphrasing them. Furthermore, she is a prominent contemporaneous historian of the period, who is specifically mentioned in John H. Arnold's cited book about problems of medieval history. Borsoka (talk)

Borsoka is correct. The rewrite in the last 3 years has been so complete that the usual FAR process is totally inappropriate, & the article should immediately be delisted so that the new owner can, if he wishes, reapply at FAC. The main contributors in the last decade per the page history (Borsoka, Ealdgyth and myself) have all said so in the past, so there should be no difficulty. The stats give Borsoka, who first edited the article 27 December 2021, long after it became FA in May 2013, 70.5% of the "authorship attribution", in 1411 edits. Johnbod (talk) 12:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, nobody owns an article, although I have experienced that some editors tend to ignore this rule. I am not convinced that the above suggestion is fully in line with the relevant rules. Borsoka (talk) 02:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: It's not so much about ownership as stewardship, and it's encased in policy. ——Serial Number 54129 15:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify - the below replies to a cmt now huffily blanked by the poster. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Always the not-understanding with you! FAR is meant to be a much lighter process, and normally attracts far fewer reviewers and comments. That may be fine for an article that has already been through FAC, but is wholly inappropriate for one that has been changed as much as this one, in effect completely re-done. In the past Borsoka expressed the view very strongly that the previous version was absolutely terrible, and should never have been made FA. What is presented now is a completely new article, that has never been through FAC, as it needs a full review, for the first time. I hope this has clarified. Johnbod (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While one wouldn't expect great detail on military matters, the article does over-rely on a single generalist work (Nicolle Medieval Warfare Source Book), which means a single and perhaps slightly dated perspective. Conflicting views on the roles of cavalry and infantry or the importance of technology in works by Rogers, DeVries and the Bachrachs among others deserve mention. The later medieval section is rather weak on maritime advances, which are a very significant factor going into the 16th century as the reach of European ambition expands globally (economic motivation is fine but it needed the technology to achieve it). This should include advances in navigation (development of portolan charts and so on) not just shipbuilding.Monstrelet (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. During the next weeks, I will try to improve the sections about military history taking into account your suggestions. Borsoka (talk) 02:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

Hi Borsoka, saving a space, will be adding comments soon. I will try to do a comprehensive review as you request in the introduction here, but given the huge scale of this article, that will take a lot of time. I hope that is ok. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that you are not re-reviewing an existing FA, but what is in effect a completely new article that has never been through FAC. So you should indeed the thorough, if you think it is appropriate to engage in this at all. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Johnbod, I understand the quality of the review would need to be high. I will work on being as thorough as possible, please let me know at any time during the process if I err. Matarisvan (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: Here goes the source formatting review, source review to come soon.

Link to Frances and Joseph Gies as done for other authors?

I am not sure that the existing link Frances and Joseph Gies is useful, and linking it to both names would be difficult.

Remove the second link to Edward Grant, as we have not linked similarly for Chris Wickham, the only other author we have used two works from?

Done.

Link to Oxford History of Art, Oxford Illustrated Histories, Routledge Studies in Medieval Religion and Culture, as done for other series?

Done.

For Lasko 1972, why use the old SBN format, and not the ISBN provided by Google Books: 9780300060485? Have there been any material changes between the two texts? If you choose the latter, the formatting would also be consistent with all the other sources in the biblio.

I use the format presented in the book. Borsoka (talk) 03:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, the source formatting review is a pass then, will do the image and source reviews tomorrow. Matarisvan (talk) 07:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here goes the image review:

File:Новгородская грамота 109 от Жизномира к Микуле 12 век.jpg - PD tag could be disputed since the photo seems to be from a book published in 2021, unless this fragment is already in the public domain, say at a museum or public collection, if so then the tag will have to be updated.

I added a new link. Borsoka (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The site has the following copyright info: © 2023 – National Research University Higher School of Economics; Institute of Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Are these government institutions? If so, then will be PD. Matarisvan (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Venice city scenes - in St. Mark's square, File:Sanvitale03.jpg - St Mark's Basilica (11002237996).jpg and - The photographers may have provided CC license for the images, but are they covered under Italy's freedom of panorama?

Based on Nikkimaria's linked remark, I understand that the "freedom of panorama issues specific to Italy are non-copyright restrictions". [12]

File:Europe and the Near East at 476 AD.png, File:Map of expansion of Caliphate.svg, File:Carolingian territorial divisions, 843/855/870.png, File:Europe mediterranean 1190.jpg - I had issues with a map which had colors like these ones in my recent FAC nom, due to MOS:COLOR. Black and white versions of these maps would be better.

We do not have available maps of better quality. From a practical perspective, I think the fact that most of the maps have not been challenged for more than a decade indicates that our readers think they are useful. [13]

File:Aachen Germany Imperial-Cathedral-12a.jpg, File:Frühmittelalterliches Dorf.jpg, File:Maria Lach 02.jpg: Covered under Germany's freedom of panorama?

See my above remark.

File:Catedral Gótica de León.jpg: Covered under Spain's freedom of panorama?

See my above remark.

All other images seem to have proper sources and copyright tags, at least as far as I can tell. @Nikkimaria will be able to provide more feedback on the images.

Matarisvan (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of the likely closers on this so will leave it to you :-) Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your image review. Borsoka (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, all images seem ok now except for File:Aachen Germany Imperial-Cathedral-12a.jpg. As per Commons, Germany's freedom of panorama rules are: "In the case of architectural works, the freedom of panorama provision is applicable only to the external appearance. Therefore, pictures of interior staircases and interior courtyards cannot be used under § 59(1) even if all of the above-described conditions are met". Now, the image does not show a courtyard or staircase, so it could be allowed on a technicality but it can very well be disputed too. For the St. Mark's Basilica statues and Sanvitale03 images, FoP is "OK for objects where the copyright has expired". The statues are from 290s AD and the mosaic from 547 AD so both are ok. On the maps with color as a legend, I'm not an expert, only Nikkimaria or another editor with image review proficiency will be able to rule on this. So pending the MOS:COLOR issue, everything else is ok. Once that is resolved then we can pass the image review. Matarisvan (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the picture about the Palatine Chapel with another one from a Carolingian manuscript. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All ok then, the image review is a pass based on my assessment. I will try to do the source review within 2-3 days. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24

As I've said before, this article is hugely lacking in music content. Despite the lengthy architecture & art sections, there is quite literally eight words on music. This is not acceptable: this period saw some of the most important developments of Western music: notation, harmony, genre etc.—these developments are vastly more fundamental than any innovations in art/architecture. This period was quite literally the birth of Western classical music. – Aza24 (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. Could you recommend a comprehensive book about medieval music? Borsoka (talk) 09:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For recent surveys, I'd recommend these: [14] [15] [16]

The classic surveys are: [17] and [18] – Aza24 (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: I expanded the article ([19]). I would be grateful for your comments. Borsoka (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely some most-welcome improvements. I'll try to take a closer look this weekend. Aza24 (talk) 04:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More comments (mainly on music):
The IB has AD 500 – 1500 but lead has 500 to 1500 AD. I'd think the AD placement should be consistent. Perhaps it should also be included once in the body, ideally in the "It customarily spans" sentence of Terminology.
I added some more on late medieval music and a small tidbit on early. I think the main movements are all covered now. The High Middle Ages music is a bit limited, could use one more line talking about how the secular songs had regional variants, Troubadours/trouvère/Minnesang. – Aza24 (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

@Borsoka: Here goes the source review. Since the article has ~500 refs, I will be doing spot checks for 20 refs, which is 4% of the total refs. I will also be using a random number generator to make the ref selection as random as possible.

Would you consider adding DOIs and JSTOR IDs for books? If so, I can provide these. Many sources are from OUP, CUP or other university presses which allow access with the above through The Wikipedia Library that is easier than accessing through ISBNs.

Sorry, my time is quite limited. I standardised the references and added a link to the books which was a boring work. I would not expand the references with further details. Borsoka (talk) 01:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is David Lindberg mentioned twice as an editor in Lindberg 2003?

Fixed.

All sources are from reliable publishers.
Is there any material in the sources from the further reading section which could be added to the article? If not, you may have to remove the section entirely. I personally don't have any issues with such a section but have seen reviews where editors have criticised the need for it.
Could you provide quotations for the following refs? I tried accessing some of them on Google Books but many previews don't have page numbers, making spot checks hard. I'll try to access some of these that have DOIs or JSTOR IDs, for the others you can provide quotations.

48, #83, #84, #97, #116, #216, #263, #280, #325, #338, #344, #368, #377, #394, #400, #463, #473, #487, #492, #495. Matarisvan (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka, I'm thinking of doing spot checks only after you've incorporated Aza24's suggestions on medieval music. That way, one or two refs from such text added can also be checked. Wdyt? Matarisvan (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was on holiday and I am extremly busy in real life now. I am working on adding info on music. Borsoka (talk) 01:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka: Not a problem, please tag when you have the time to work on the article and we will resume the review then. Matarisvan (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I intend to have a look sometime in the next month. Ping me if I haven't got round to it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 :) Aza24 (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick read of the lede and skim of the rest. Made some tweaks, but didn't find glaring deficiencies. Sdkb ^talk 21:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "glaring deficiency", from the FAR point of view, is that the article has been very largely rewritten and almost completely re-referenced by Borsoka since it passed the FAC, without involvement by the original editors. It is essentially a different article, which has not been through FAC. The only thing to do is to remove FA status, & let it be re-submitted at FAC. The FAR process is not intended to deal with this situation, & is not capable of handling it. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just three remarks. One of the "original editors" (=nominators) had been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry, so they could hardly be involved. A second nominator decided that they would unwatch this article soon after I started tagging the article indicating several cases of unverified statements, marginal PoVs, factual inaccuracies etc. ([20]). The third nominator, actually, was actively involved in the process by unverified reverts and by sharing their own thoughts on several aspects of the medieval periods without referring to reliable sources (as it is demonstrated in several discussions in Archive 10, Archive 11, and under section "Laziness" in Archive 12). Borsoka (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. No disagreement with the salient points, I see. Johnbod (talk) 02:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no other editor has accepted your proposal. I cannot agree or disagree with it because you have not quoted a single text from any relevant WP policy to substantiate it. Borsoka (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This review is going nowhere and frankly is an insult given the article history. Move to delist sadly; page has denigrated and has not received a review on FAC criteria in its entirely re-written form. Borsoka suggest you take it to GA first, then to PR before you present again as FA-worthy; although your aims seems to be to smith your enemies rather than move the page on. Dismal behaviour. Ceoil (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no enemies. Please do not assume that editors are here to fight although I am sure this is a surprise for you. Perhaps you want to take me to ANI for misconduct instead of continuing your boring personal attacks. Borsoka (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Move to delist nonetheless. Ceoil (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

Apologies for the delay. Comments to follow.

I've spent some time comparing the current article with the old; I think overall there has been enough improvement to warrant a rewrite, notwithstanding the displeasure of the original authors who also put a lot into this article.

My comments will naturally focus on those areas with which I am more familiar (which, not to blow my trumpet, is most of this), so some points of detail may go unexplored. With a view to length: 13,500 is of course quite long but justifiable with an article of this calibre—still, we should look to trimming more then adding, I think. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do like the structure, most of which seems to have been inherited from the previous version, but it was certainly a good choice to keep it. And a sources section! you know I like a good one of those.
Has to be said that the lead is chunky: 625 words is on the top end for any FA. I think the third paragraph especially is slightly problematic—it reads not so much as a professional summary but instead a prosified bullet-point list. You don't have to summarise literally everything in the "High Middle Ages" section with equal weight. See what you can do.

I have given this a prune, as it seemed like no one else was going to. It may be over severe but it is certainly clearer. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which states are mentioned in the lead? Western and Eastern Rome, Franks/Carolingians ... nothing in the High Middle Ages paragraph ... Ottoman Empire. I think that confirms, for me at least, that the third paragraph is too thematic-focused. I would expect at least the HRE to be mentioned.
The new periodisation section is a definite improvement—the old "Development of the concept" subsection seems a little bit wasted space.
- "to use tripartite periodisation" perhaps add a "this" before tripartite?
You aren't certain whether the Middle Ages are singular or plural. For the former: "The Middle Ages is", "It customarily spans". For the latter: "the Middle Ages were often known".
- "It customarily spans" certainly has no direct antecedent.
"There is no universally-agreed-upon end date" this was just said; remove and start the sentence with "the most frequently..."
It's an odd choice to start the sources section focusing on what we don't have, rather than what we do have.
I don't know if three paragraphs on events before even 350 AD is necessarily WP:DUE; the "Later Roman Empire" section certainly seems quite overburdened.

As before, pruned, perhaps over severely but more in keeping I think. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I have limited access to WP till the end of the week, so I will address them on Sunday. Borsoka (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further Commentary

It would seem Nikkimaria that we are close, or at least as close as we are likely to get, to consensus here. What do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose an extension so that Airship and Az's reviews play out. They are shaping up to be beneficial for a future FAC, although they shouldnt be allowed to move it over the line here it a step forward. Ceoil (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil—this is fair enough if these reviews were actually playing out, but they seem rather dormant. Perhaps AirshipJungleman29 and Aza24 could confirm whether they intend to return to this review. Furthermore, it appears that the nominator Borsoka is too busy to address any issues raised. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do intend to continue, but if consensus is to delist for "procedural reasons" I might as well save my comments for the FAC.
I wasn't aware however that you could delist an FA simply for having been rewritten—I thought the important thing was whether it met the FA criteria, and as far as I can see none of the !votes above have provided any evidence in that direction. If one of them could point me to a discussion outlining this type of "procedural" delist I would much appreciate it. Or is the argument that it has not met criterion 1e? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really that (not met criterion 1e). Thanks to Borsoka's vigorous WP:OWNing, stability is the least of the problems here. Johnbod (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if the situation has come up before, and am not going to research the matter - you could ask ask at FAC. Is there a precedent for passing an article like this? But FAR, obviously, is a rather light touch review process for articles that have passed the FAC process, and this one hasn't. Therefore we need an FAC, precisely to determine whether it meets the FA criteria; currently we just don't know. That doesn't seem conceptually difficult to me, and I'm not sure I would call it a "procedural reason". We shouldn't be "grandfathering" articles in. If the rather sparse FAR "rules" don't yet mention this, then they should. Johnbod (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, this review seems to be heading towards a pass by one person, AirshipJungleman29 (whose comments are being actioned only by Norfolkbigfish (since reverted) also an opposer), with comments on a narrow area by Aza24. That to me seems like falling through the cracks. If I were either of the editors arguing for keep here; I'd be punting towards FAC, for reputational and transparency reasons. Ceoil (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod off the top of my head unresolved precedents would be the war over Global warming, and Moors murders and the second FAR for Byzantine Empire. Ceoil (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I was mercifully unaware of these! Just looking at the last of them, Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Byzantine_Empire/archive3 rather relevant to here, the high priestess of FAR, User:SandyGeorgia, was surely right to say at the start that a full new FAC was needed. But she didn't push for that, so over a year later, the process drifts on in a desultory fashion, that I think inspires no confidence that if the star is kept the article will deserve it. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was busy, but I returned a couple of days ago. I have not addressed the issues because I have been waiting for the outcome of this intermezzo. As I mentioned before, I would accept any conclusion. However, so far this section looks like a private conversation among three editors who (as usual) come to an agreement without referring to any point of a relevant WP policy. Borsoka (talk) 10:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no editors who are arguing for keep here because for the time being the normal process is being followed. Consequently, those who argue for a delist should refer to a single point in the relevant policies. Norfolkbigfish's "action" demonstrates the destructive consequences of ignoring our rules. By the way, the article was edited based on FAR comments. Borsoka (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't play both sides here citing on the one hand that there are "no editors who are arguing for keep" while berating "those who argue for a delist" while reverting Norfolkbigfish. That's just embarrassing double-speak. Noting also your attempt to refracture the discussion by placing your reply to recent points after the days old "I was busy" ANI flu-type excuse. Ceoil (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get your approach Borsoka, you are so knowledgeable, but obstinate at times, clearly a victory via FA is the best path here. Ceoil (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not play both sides: I have clearly stated, at least twice, that I will accept any outcome but I ask you to refer to a single point of relevant WP policies. Sorry, I do not understand what is the connection between my statement made some hours ago, and my revert of Norfolkbigfish's "edits" yesterday. (Please note those edits were reverted by an other editor as well [21].) I do not attempt to refracture the discussion in any way: I always try to place my comments where they are to be placed in context. I have several times explained you that it is not me who is here to fight or to have my victory. Borsoka (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is characteristically misleading. There were review comments unactioned since the 21st October, so in attempt to move these on I summarized the lead and another section as the comments suggested. No factual information was added. Both were reverted by the nominator. I attempted to summarize the Lead in another edit and followed with an edit to insert a space. The nominator then reverted the space edit, leaving the first edit in place. The subsequent editor then noticed this mistake, and reverted the first edit to be helpful. There is no evidence that this indicates support for the reverts, only of an editor rectifying an obvious mistake. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping the editor who reverted your edit when assuming something about their motivation. Remsense, before reverting your edit, thanked the remarks I made about your edits on the article's Talk page. You (as it is not unusual) ignored my remarks before partially repeating your edits (that contain unverified claims and obviously false statements). Please also read the article's history before stating that any of my comments is misleading: I made several edits in accordance with comments by other reviewers ([22], [23]) in July and September. Borsoka (talk) 10:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the FAR co-ords Nikkimaria, Casliber and DrKay as this seems intractable and a matter of scope. Ceoil (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka I dunno at this stage, you are exhausting and given your use of double-hands, I'm bowing out for now least I talk my way into a block. The FAR coordinates are typically even-handed, and I will leave it to them; I'm as likely to get as hammered as you but at least a precedent will be set. Ceoil (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since there have been demands for specific issues based on the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, let's do that:

1)It is:

"a) well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;" - untested by full review. Numerous relatively minor issues with idiom and vocab are normally found by Borsoka's reviewers.

"b) "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;"- untested by review. There have been significant changes here

"c) "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;" - almost certainly NOT based on "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", though that is a huge demand here. As usual on large subjects that are not on his main stomping ground of Central/Eastern Europe, Borsoka tends to pick a single source, not always of top quality, and stick with it.

"d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;" - untested by full review. Very probably there are issues here, suggested by the direction of some of Borsoka's changes.

"e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process;" - untested by full review. Borsoka's vigorous reverting of almost all changes keeps it relatively stable.

"f) compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing". - untested by full review.

Criteria 2-4 are also untested by a full review. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(1) (ad b): I think the article was without doubt improved from this perspective. For instance, your version of the article did not mention Cyril and Methodius, Cyrillic script, Old Church Slavonic, the Khazars, Mount Athos, the Arab sieges of Constantinople, Arianism and Bogumilism, and almost completely ignored the history of Scandinavia, Central Europe, Eastern Europe and the Balkans.
(2) (ad c): Please compare the bibliography of your and this version, and you will be surprised how many specialised new sources were introduced. Indeed, I expanded the article with facts about the history of Central and Eastern Europe, Scandinavia and the Balkans, because one of the weakest part of your version was its almost total ignorance of the history of large regions of Europe (together with obviously false statements, for instance about a powerful high medieval Poland). In addition of using some more general sources (such as Barber's cited book) to improve coverage of Central and Eastern Europe, I introduced the following specific sources: (1) *Curta, Florin (2019). Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages (500–1300), Volume I. Brill's Companion to European History. Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-41534-8. (your version referred to Curta's work about the history of Southeastern Europe); (2) Fine, John V. A. (2009) [1987]. The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest. The University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-08260-5.; (3) Grzymała-Busse, Anna (2023). Sacred Foundations: The Religious and Medieval Roots of the European State. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-6912-4508-9.; (4) Sedlar, Jean W. (1994). East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000–1500. A History of East Central Europe. Vol. III. University of Washington Press. ISBN 978-0-295-97290-9. Which one would you qualify as not of top quality? On the other hand, I stopped referring to sources of questionable quality extensively used in your version.
(3) (ad d): Examples?
(4) (ad e): If you read the article's history, you will find dozens of edits made by other editors that I did not revert because they improved the article. For instance, this case shows that I willingly accepted all suggestions that were verified. (In addition, it also indicates that other editors also realised that your version contained debatable statements.) Yes, I reverted most of your reverts, but I always explained my action. For instance, when you reverted my edit ([24]) because you seem to have (wrongly) associated the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church with the Roman Empire's ecclesiastic structure and (also wrongly) thought that the Desert Fathers lived in Syria as well, I asked you to explain your action before reverting your revert.
(5) Sorry, I began not to understand what you want. You are saying that nothing is tested by full review although two editors (Airship and Matarisvan) stated above that they were ready to complete a full review. From the start, you want to prevent them from completing the full review. Similarly, Norfolkbigfish wants to delist the article without a review, but is obviously ready to edit it in accordance with Airship's suggestions during the review. You both should decide what you want.
(6) Again, I have always wanted to improve articles not to collect badges, so I am ready to restore your version and initiate a new FAR. I could, in a couple of day, list the unverified statements, misinterpreted facts, marginal PoVs that should be fixed in order to keep its FA status. As you are a native English speaker, I think you do not need more than a month to fix all of them, and coverage could be imporved based on my text. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that rather than collect badges, you are an egotist that wants to collect scalps..." coverage could be imporved based on my text" does not give confidence. Your approach to the talk page indicates this: endless top-level header points on every issue to wear down the incumbents. Ceoil (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify what you're proposing here? Is it your suggestion to revert back to the version prior to your edits, and start a new FAR on that? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Moving to get more input regarding this article's status WRT the FA criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist obviously. The current version is, via attrition,not what was examined at FAC. And per Johnbod above, FAR is designed to repair and shouldn't be able to pass an entirely rewritten article as FAC standard. Borsoka should open a fresh FAC with his new version and see how his bludgeoning tactics work there. Ceoil (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about bludgeoning above. Does it mean that you could prove that the two huge archives where I indicated dozens of cases of unverified statements or statements representing marginal PoVs in the article's "FA" version (FA?) are basically incorrect? If this is the case, please do not hesitate to take me to ANI. The two of the three nominators who can still edit WP perhaps could assist you. Ping them. Borsoka (talk) 13:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missing the point! You yourself have said that the article was (relatively recently, after you had made vast numbers of changes) unfit to be an FA. The version that actually passed FAC is gone, & there is no point in re-opening arguments over its merits. The issue is that the current version that replaced it is unreviewed, and the various points raised above, fine as far as they go, by no means amount to the "thorough and comprehensive new review" that you yourself said at the top here was needed. This FAR has now been open almost 4 months, without attracting any overall support for the current version, and there is no alternative to a Delist. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist as per Ceoil and Johnbod. Notwithstanding the quality of the article itself it has been comprehensively changed since reaching FA and needs a thorough review. It is not getting that here with FAR so needs to go back through the FAC process. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and regardless of Airship's late intervention, they are just one voice and POV. Resubmission at FAC is the only option. Ceoil (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to declare a strict keep or delist, but given that the point of WP is to present information in the best possible, most thorough and palpable way, I don't see why an FA resubmission would be anything but helpful. It would bring a lot of eyes to the new draft and iron out any kinks. I don't think this version is too far from an FA anyways; it's certainly GA but just hasn't had the proper vetting/site-wide consideration that a subject this big requires. – Aza24 (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its certainly the case that your and Airship's reviews are beneficial. Would like them to continue. Ceoil (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 150: / Line 150: @@
 :*(5) Sorry, I began not to understand what you want. You are saying that nothing is tested by full review although two editors (Airship and Matarisvan) stated above that they were ready to complete a full review. From the start, you want to prevent them from completing the full review. Similarly, Norfolkbigfish wants to delist the article without a review, but is obviously ready to edit it in accordance with Airship's suggestions during the review. You both should decide what you want.
 :*(6) Again, I have always wanted to improve articles not to collect badges, so I am ready to restore your version and initiate a new FAR. I could, in a couple of day, list the unverified statements, misinterpreted facts, marginal PoVs that should be fixed in order to keep its FA status. As you are a native English speaker, I think you do not need more than a month to fix all of them, and coverage could be imporved based on my text. [[User:Borsoka|Borsoka]] ([[User talk:Borsoka|talk]]) 01:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
+:::My impression is that rather than collect badges, you are an egotist that wants to collect scalps..." coverage could be imporved based on my text" does not give confidence. Your approach to the talk page indicates this: endless top-level header points on every issue to wear down the incumbents. [[User:Ceoil|Ceoil]] ([[User talk:Ceoil|talk]]) 02:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
 ::*Could you clarify what you're proposing here? Is it your suggestion to revert back to the version prior to your edits, and start a new FAR on that? [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 14:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)