Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Secretum (British Museum)/archive1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
sr |
|||
Line 223:
:Many thanks {{u|750h+}}, that's very kind of you. Cheers - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 13:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
====
On the case. A Private one, of course. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:red">——Serial Number 54129</span>]] 15:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
* Formatting spotless.
* Page range for Wright's contribution.
* I guess it's OK for FAC ("But the author is a renowned academic"), but ''History Today'' is not considered a scholarly journal. Academics write in it, but it's what they do when they want to reach a wider audience. It's very rarely cited in academic monographs/journal articles. Sure Gaimster doesn't develop his ideas elsewhere at a later date? It seems odd, all things being equal, that anything he considered important in ''HT'' in 2000 didn't make its way into the Bayley chapter the following year.
* Excellent use Grove's thesis, no shying away with that!
Overall, all the sources are impeccable representations of the field, with one exception perhaps, and there are no immediately apparent gaps in the literature. Books and chapters are all late 20th/21st century studies by the above-noted "renowned academics" and published by reputable academic presses; newspapers are of record; it's a welcome surprise when only one out of so many works is Antiquarian.{{pb}}Happy to '''pass''' the source review. Cheers, [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:red">——Serial Number 54129</span>]] 17:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
| |||