# Talk:Architecture of Scotland in the Middle Ages

This review is transcluded from Talk:Architecture of Scotland in the Middle Ages/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 19:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Nominator: Sabrebd
I will carefully read this article, and will begin this review shortly. – Quadell (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on.--SabreBD (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


### Suggestions for future improvement
The "Notes" section often repeats the full bibliographic reference in several footnotes. It would be better to place books in a separate "Bibliography" section, alphabetized, with an abbreviated reference to the work and page numbers in the Notes section. See, for instance, the References and Bibliography sections of Adam Eckfeldt or John Sherman.
Is this a good article requirement or just a suggestion for the future?
It's a suggestion for the future (or present, if you are so inclined), but it is not a GA requirement. I'm also willing to do this myself (if you agree that it would be an improvement, but don't feel like doing it yourself). – Quadell (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
It would be an improvement to have some sort of tie-things-together sentence at the end of "Background" that introduces the rest of the article, saying that new forms of vernacular buildings, churches, and defensive fortifications sprung up, and giving a hint of how important the changes were. In fact, this might be the same sentence used in the lead section to sum up the background section information.
I will probably myself before going to FA if that is OK.--SabreBD (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


### GA Review List
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 
All issues resolved.
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
All issues resolved.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 
A suggestion for improvement is noted above.
B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
All issues resolved.
B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
This satisfies all the GA criteria, and I'm happy to promote this article to GA status. – Quadell (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Architecture of Scotland in the Middle Ages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014091820/http://www.architecture.com/HowWeBuiltBritain/HistoricalPeriods/Scottish/KirksThroughoutTheAges/Introduction.aspx to http://www.architecture.com/HowWeBuiltBritain/HistoricalPeriods/Scottish/KirksThroughoutTheAges/Introduction.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)