Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle Ages/Archive 5

Active discussions
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

RE:Wikipedia:Featured article review/Gunnhild, Mother of Kings

I have nominated Gunnhild Mother of Kings for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Mixco Viejo listed as WP Middle Ages

I'm currently working on the Mixco Viejo article, about an archaeological site in Guatemala. I notice that someone has applied the Wikiproject Middle Ages banner on the talk page. Any objections to me removing it - it surely cannot be relevant here? Simon Burchell (talk) 08:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen anyone interpret "middle ages" that broadly. No objections here. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, duly removed. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Germanic peoples

There is a "discussion" on Talk:Germanic peoples about a the includeability of a genetics section. The reasons or excuses offered on the talk page for inclusion of this are totally unconvincing, and it comes across as an embarrassingly Nazi-esque attempt to provide a modern origo gentis for a much beloved 18th century ethno-linguistic construction. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Llywelyn the Great FAR

I have nominated Llywelyn the Great for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Lampman (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Albigensian Crusade

Article needs to be written from the secondary sources rather than the primary ones. Apart from this, it's not bad. I wondered if anyone here had the Sumption book to hand. I've got Montaillou, but it is tangential since Leroy Ladurie's archive research was based on the 14th century, when the Crusade was over (although the Cathars seem to have hung on). Itsmejudith (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Barnet peer review

I have rewritten the Battle of Barnet and plan to nominate it for Featured Article. As the battle is part of the Wars of the Roses, a series of conflicts that occured in medieval England, I presume the project would be interested in the article. I invite all to read it and leave comments and suggestions at Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Barnet/archive1. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:25, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Peterborough Chronicle for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

medici

i am doing a project on the medici —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.229.206 (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Barnet at FAC

Forsooth, yon Battle of Barnet is up for Featured Article candidancy at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Barnet/archive1. The project is invited to go forth, comment on the article, and help to decide its fate. Will it attain a bronze star? It is up to you! Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 08:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Bosworth Field now open

Hi all. This is the battle that ended the Middle Ages for England (or so the Tudor historians claim...). I have greatly expanded the article and would appreciate comments and critiques at Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Bosworth Field/archive1. Could the article's class and importance be assessed as well? Thank you all. Jappalang (talk) 08:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Egardus

I have done a GA Reassessment of the Egardus article as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to not meet the GA Criteria. As such I have put it on hold for one week pending improvement. I am notifying all interested projects and editors of the possibility that this article will be delisted from GA if work is not done to bring it up to GA standards. If you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. My review can be found here. H1nkles (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Merseburg Incantations

I have done a GA Reassessment of Merseburg Incantations as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to be fine except for the lack of references in a couple of sections. I have put [citation needed] templates where I feel at least one in-line citation would be needed. My review is here. I have put the article on hold for a week pending work on the references. I am notifying the interested projects of this. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. H1nkles (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Mongol invasion of Khwarezmia

I have done a GA Reassessment of Mongol invasion of Khwarezmia as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to need considerable work on the references. My review can be found here. I am notifying the interesting projects of this review. I have put the article on hold pending work. If there are questions please contact me at my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

University of Cambridge GAR notice

University of Cambridge has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Classical vs. Medieval Japan

The Heian period, despite overlapping chronologically with the Middle Ages in Europe is considered to be the "last division of classical Japanese history", as it says in the article. I do not believe it should have an info box from this project on it. Thoughts? Franzeska (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347 peer review notice

Hello! There is a peer review of the Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347 going on over at WPMILHIST. Everyone is invited to give his opinion and ideas for improvement! Cheers, Constantine 08:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

An A-Class review is on for the article at WPMILHIST. Anyone interested is welcome to pitch in! Constantine 13:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Presenting the Battle of Bosworth Field at FAC

This battle supposedly ended the Middle Ages for England and is now aspiring to become a Featured Article on Wikipedia. Please read the article and come to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Bosworth Field/archive1 to offer your thoughts and comments. Suggestions and criticisms to improve the article and your support are most welcome. Jappalang (talk) 08:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Spotlight

 Chzz  ►  22:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

please find one ref for this page

SORRY IF THIS IS IN THE WRONG PLACE. Please direct me to somewhere more suitable. This article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%86lfric_Puttoc - is excellent, and is much better than the stub class it has been rated as by several projects. There is just one unsourced comment. I lack knowledge and books to provide a source. The article could probably go to FAC after this source has been found, and can come off back-logs. Kind regards 87.113.86.207 (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's no where ready for FAC. There is little background context that tells someone unfamiliar with the time period or subject what is going on. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
That's fine. Look at some of the math articles - inpenetrable to many people. ut, ignoring FAC for the moment, the article is listed at a back log for lack of sourcing, and has been there for ages. I'm sure someone here will have a great source, and could thus rescue that article from a soure backlog list. 87.113.86.207 (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Music of the Trecento

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a large number of concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Music of the Trecento/GA1. I have de-listed the article. You may challenge this decision at WP:GAR or make improvements and submit for review at WP:GAN. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

FAR for Penda of Mercia

I have nominated Penda of Mercia for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Cirt (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Robin Hood

Robin Hood has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Papal election, 1268–1271

I have done a GA Reassessment of the Papal election, 1268–1271 article as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to nearly meet the GA Criteria. It is lacking in a couple of places and I have outlined my concerns here. I have placed the article on hold for a week and I am notifying all interested projects and editors of the hold. If you have questions please contact me on my talk page and I will be happy to discuss the review. H1nkles (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347 FAC

Hello to all! The FAC for the Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347 is open! Everyone is invited to participate, any input would be most appreciated! Regards, Constantine 18:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of University of Glasgow

University of Glasgow has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Egbert vs. Ecgberht

There's a debate about spelling of the name of the Anglo-Saxon king Egbert at Template_talk:Mercian_monarchs that I would like to get more input on: should it be "Egbert" or "Ecgberht" in the template? Mike Christie (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Middle Francia merge proposal

A discussion is occurring at Talk:Middle Francia#Merger Proposal, where it has been proposed that Middle Francia be merged into Lotharingia. -Rrius (talk) 04:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Galicia and Portugal

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Galicia and Portugal. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Rfc at Talk:Celestial spheres

A request for comment on a large amount of disputed content in the article Celestial spheres, a B-grade article of mid-importance within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, is under way here. Anyone who can usefully contribute to the discussion, please do so.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

List of featureed content

Is there possible to make list of all featured and good content. I think that best solution is in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 19:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Middle Ages/Archive 5".