# Talk:Medieval household

Well, I did review the article, but did not have the courage to fail it. It is a great article and a surprise that no one had written about this subject before, but there are some points to consider:
1.The article has relied heavily on 2 sources: Woolgar, and Herlihy. The article did not specify they were books, nor any further information, links.
2."The medieval world was a much less urban society than both the Roman Empire and the modern world" and "The houses of medieval peasants were of poor quality compared to modern houses" seem rather obvious.
3."It seems clear that the average age of marriage during the Early Middle Ages was relatively high, and quite equal for men and women" citation perhaps?
4."girls were increasingly married away in their teens, leading to higher birth rates.While women would be married once they reached reproductive age" Nothing wrong at first instance, but it has internal contradictions; "girls were increasingly" suggests a trend, but "While women would" suggest a fixed state. Also, "girls in their teens" is not the same as  "women". Not to mention that "reached reproductive age" is not the same as "in their teens" as the sentanace suggests.
5.The article needs to be broad enough, i.e. what about Asia, Africa, etc? It is Europe-centric.
Λua∫Wise (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC

Needless to say, the number of thorough, academic monographs on the subject is limited, so a heavy reliance on a small number of sources is inevitable. There are, however, some 20-30 sources quoted altogether in the article. The second part of your objection I don’t quite understand, but I believe I have followed the proper rules of citation.
Point taken, I’ll se if I can do something about that.
In this case the citation that follows refers to the two preceding sentences. There is no rule saying there has to be a citation for every full stop, and personally I think it would only clutter the page needlessly to repeat the same citation in two subsequent sentences.
I will try to clarify this. I believe there is general consensus that reproductive age in the human female starts around age 13 or 14, but since this is a history, not a biology article, I don’t think it’s worthwhile getting too bogged down in this question.
See comment below. Lampman (talk) 11:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The consensus of the reproductive age of women is not interesting, but rather the consensus about when women were deemed appropriate to marry. That's certainly not just a matter of biology. I don't really believe that all noble women were married off when they could produce children either. The current text completely ignores women who became nuns or spinsters. Marriage politics among the high nobility was an important factor, and considering that dowries were expensive, the matter of of simply forking away one's daughters wasn't simply a matter of them hitting puberty.
Peter Isotalo 16:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
In this case the citation that follows refers to the two preceding sentences. There is no rule saying there has to be a citation for every full stop, and personally I think it would only clutter the page needlessly to repeat the same citation in two subsequent sentences.  In editing a work for publishing yourself, this is probably true. In a format such as Wikipedia, where any other editor can come in and add material in any location (such as between your two currently adjacent statements form the same source), the arguement for not needing a duplication of sourcing falls short.144.15.255.227 (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems we have different personal opinions on this point, so we'll just have to stick to Wikipedia policy and practice. Apparently certain articles can still pass FA-nominations with entire unsourced paragraphs, though personally I would not support that. Lampman (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
When an article does have plenty of source specifications, the reader should at least attempt to check the existing sources before demanding more footnotes. Gratuitous footnote counting usually doesn't lead to better or more accurate article, only more footnotes.
Peter Isotalo 15:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Very odd to hear— or in a better world it should be so— that someone "did not have the courage to fail it." Surely if one yearns to fail someone else's work, courage should never be in short supply. One would have hoped to hear ..."had the good sense not to fail it."  What a very great deal of time could be wasted trying to please the self-appointed "vetting committee" for Good Articles. This is obviously quite a good article, whether or not it is voted a "Good Article". When the new category of Mediocre Article is set up, I hope to be contacted: I have some candidates. --Wetman (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe there is some merit to Auwawise's hesitation. A GA assessor should be fairly critical and the default position should be "fail", not "pass". GAs are determined by quality, not effort. Though this is a quite praiseworthy effort, it's still just a initial draft. The article is brand spanking new, and that's usually not the best time to call for a GA assessment.
I'm personally somewhat concerned that the scope of the article is somewhat in a limbo between the very general and quite narro. On the one side, the variations in households throughout the Middle Ages are fairly large and on the other side it might very well be better to write about this topic in more general articles like medieval society (or something like it). I also have doubts about linking the evolution of early modern warfare to the development of a new type of household. And placing it even before the much more influential move towards privacy seems like giving military history undue coverage in an article which is primarily dealing with social, economic and cultural history.
Peter Isotalo 12:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Could I also recommend not using the needlessly complicated extra heading for notes with the narrow definition of "general comments"? Clarity in referencing would be much improved if "Notes" contained both comments and shorthand specification of sources with "Reference" being reserved for full specification of books. The full details of individual works doesn't actually need to be specified in footnotes.
Peter Isotalo 12:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
There is really no medieval period outside of Europe because there's no antiquity and Renaissance to embed it in. The concept of the Middle Ages is by definition Eurocentric and should be confined to Europe.
Peter Isotalo 07:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Wetman that the "did not have the courage to fail it"-comment is somewhat bizarre, and as I've remarked on the reviewer's talk page, I suspect he has not fully understood the procedure of reviewing GA-candidates. Only in certain, extreme cases should GA-candidates be failed at sight (see quick fail criteria), and this is certainly not one of those. Otherwise, the nominator/creator should be given a suitable time period to fix any problems. Also, the points raised by Auawise are primarily minor issues with language or style, and as such easily fixable. The only major, structural issue he raises is the last one, concerning Eurocentrism. As Peter Isotalo has already pointed out, this is not objectionable.
As for Peter Isotalo's objections, I appreciate the input on formatting. Personally I prefer to keep comments and references separate. I have also reserved the "Further reading", or "Sources" section for works that are central to the subject and referenced repeatedly, while more peripheral works that are only cited once I've simply put in the footnotes. Ultimately I guess this is simply a question of personal taste though. The connection between military developments and household structure I believe is well explained and properly referenced, but I can certainly change the structure of the section.
Otherwise your criticism is a bit vague. Is there anything in particular that you think is missing form the article in its present form? Lampman (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The article tries to tackle a pretty massive topic with a very limited amount of information which is often focused on a few aspects. There's undue focus on the household as a military unit governed by martial development and extensive information on administration, but virtually nothing on economic and cultural history. There's only hints at the rural household as an economic unit, the social issues are limited to marriage patterns, and really nothing on the social and cultural perception of the household except the issue about privacy.
And terms like "barbarian tribes" is not appropriate in this article. The term is a highly unsatisfying remnant of a type of historiography that focuses too much on the perceived supremacy of a vaguely defined "Western civilization".
Peter Isotalo 17:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it is a disturbing development if we’re going to start subjecting GA-candidates to FA-standards. To remind you what the GA criteria say: the article should be "broad" only in the sense of addressing the "major aspects of the topic", without getting into "unnecessary detail". Furthermore:
This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics to be listed.
Is there more that could be added to make this a perfect article? Probably, but I can’t for the life of me see how it fails any of the GA criteria. I will try to incorporate your suggested improvements, but even though I appreciate constructive feedback I am quite honestly a bit dispirited by putting a lot of work into an article only to come up against reviewers who either don’t know what they’re talking about, or come to the review with a "default position" to fail it. Lampman (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This is actually more of an issue of neutrality and undue coverage, actually. Comprehensiveness is also part of the problem, but we're still talking about pretty basic requirements. I don't see anything constructive in trying to start a general debate of GAC interpetations, though. Article-related issues have been brought up and I think it would be better if you tried addressing those instead of implying that I'm an incompetent reviewer.
Peter Isotalo 14:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
That claim wasn't levelled at you, though you might wanna read up on modern scholarship concerning the term "barbarian"; you don't have to go further than the Wikipedia article. I suggest we don't get caught up in semantic squabbles, but rather focus on the historic reality behind commonly used terms.
I take your point about cultural and social aspects, and will try to incorporate more of this. A few things should be made clear though: this is not an article about estates, in which case there would have to be more about economic aspects. It is not an article about demographics, in which case there would have to be more about social aspects. It is simply an article about the household as an institution, with a heavy focus on aristocratic households, only because these were more complex, and for this reason there is more to be said about them.
As for your concerns about "neutrality", I think you might be conflating criteria 3 and 4. 3 says only that all major areas should be addressed, it says nothing about relative weight of coverage. 4 is about neutrality, but neither this in the sense of weight of coverage. It demands that the article "represents viewpoints fairly and without bias." I don't think I'm biased on this subject, but if there's any "viewpoint" you believe I have ignored - specific scholars or historical schools - please point these out to me, I'm always happy to include a wider array of good academic sources. Lampman (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
"Barbarian" is an incredibly vague term. In my experience it's used occasionally in modern literature, but then usually qualified in one way or another or used as a highly literary or downright subjective term. When writing about antiquity, it's usually rather clear what it's all about, but when it comes to the Middle Ages, it's basically pointless. Since it was being linked to Germanic peoples, I've changed the wording.
I've had a look at most of the literature you've cited, and my first impression is that certain sources are very dominant. For example, why is Woolgar, who writes specifically about English households, used to cite most of the information on aristocratic households? I haven't been able to get a hold of Herilhy yet, but by descriptions I've read it would appear he takes a somewhat broader perspective.
I think your reply shows rather clearly that you are taking a perspective by trying to define what the article should or should not inform about. I'll get back to you with more detailed comments once I've taken a closer look at the sources.
Peter Isotalo 15:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Responding- Not failing it straight through was due to my knowledge that User:Lampman would call for a GAR the second it is failed, and it seems-from the aggressive note he left on my talkpage calling me an ignorant uneducated editor who needs to refrain from GA reviews- that I was right. Another thing which I need to answer is comment number 5 in my review. What I meant there, was that Europe can not be isolated from its surroundings, and the influence other peoples had on it should be mentioned. We can not just simply take it out of its historical context as an isolated continent. And if my uneducated ignorant mind can remember correctly, the Iberian peninsula was for many decades under foreign rule which left its mark on all of Europe. The Ottomans had an influence on eastern Europe (which is somewhat ignored in this article as it focuses mainly on France, England, Italy with other northern nations) in particular. Λua∫Wise (talk) 11:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Let it be said for the record that I used neither the word "ignorant" nor "uneducated"; my comments were on the whole polite. This is difficult to verify now, however, as Auawise has removed the comment. Lampman (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I do not wish to to escalate this discussion, but would like to point out that, it is all what Lampman implied that matters (e.g. "not having basic familiarity...you should refrain from reviewing" is a nice way of saying "an ignorant"). Perhaps I should have put the article on hold, but simply this would not be practical. Just one note though, I have reviewed many articles before, Lampman, I am well familiar with GAN procedures despite what your message has said. Also, per WP:TALK, please do not change people's commentary as you did to my unofficial review above (i.e. inserting your notes between my commendations). Thanks Λua∫Wise (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd encourage both parties to cut down on comments about each other's behavior and focus on fact issues. But I do think it would be helpful, Lampman, if you didn't split up post nor rearrange the chronology of the threads. You reply will be noticed even if it doesn't come directly after the reviewer's comments.
Peter Isotalo 16:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Λua∫Wise (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Considering the fact that there was a request for critiicsm/feedback on this article, the responses to that feedback are incredibly hostile /defensive. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks TheRedPenOfDoom for your support. The response was indeed a bit defensive. Anyway, I am here to say that although the article has not been substantially altered, it is much better now than when I reviewed it more than a month ago.
All what I did above was simply to point out some issues with the article, and not GA-reviewing it, given the discouraging response I got. This is clear from the fact that I neither  used the "Review" template on  the GAN page, nor did I put it on hold. I apologize if my comments above were rather ambiguous and if they implied that I am reviewing it. This will no longer cause a problem since another editor has put the article on hold, and it appears they look favourably on passing it.
Cheers!
Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 14:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I heartily disagree that the article should pass in the current state. It has a heavy slant toward a perspective selected by the main author. It appears to have sources that are varied enough, but they have been used way too selectively.
Peter Isotalo 17:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

" In contrast to the households of today, however, it consisted of many more individuals than simply the nuclear family" This statement is making an unsupported and western centric assumption that 'nuclear family' is somehow the world wide standard. That is not even really true today in western societies where close to half the families end in divorce, if it ever was true.144.15.255.227 (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The article itself is "Western centric" since the Middle Ages is an era related to the history of Europe, not the World. While the nuclear family might not be the only type of family constellation in existance today, it's still the most dominant family formation around. In this context, the generalization is quite acceptable.
Peter Isotalo 19:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The comments in the 'Notes' section are not encyclopedic in tone and should probably be written in a more academic style.

The chronicler Einhard sardonically wrote:
It should be mentioned that many – if not most – of these apprentices...

The footnotes in the table make it look like they apply only to the 'napery'. Is that true or would it be clearer if a 'header row' with a title were added to the table and the footnotes attached to the header?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 

You're right, I had this same concern too. I've tried to fix it, cheers! Lampman (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, props for countering the bias towards media produced by my work on music articles, amongst others! :) Now, for the review!

"however, during the Middle Ages" - none of this is necessary and the sentence flows better without it
"than simply the nuclear family." - rmv "simply"
No interwiki links?
"translated as "household" rather than as "family"" - change first "as" to "to", remove second
"Apart from these, all the servants were male." - well, they must be either female or male, so this is already implied in the previous sentence. You can remove it
"Many of these" - after removing, replace "these" with "the males" or similar
"family were the" - were --> was
"there was also a need" - rmv "also"
"There were also spiritual needs" - again
"Probably the most important" - eeeeek... (unless a source specifically says this was the most important)
"honorary titles; bestowed upon the greatest families" - semicolon not needed
"this was a vital part of governance" - what is "this" referring to?
"In other parts of Europe, the situation was different. On the northern and western fringes of the continent, society was kin-based rather than feudal, and households were organised correspondingly." - needs ref (should be relatively easy...just google "Albanian culture" for instance...)
"but equally much in the fact " - remove "much"
The template at the bottom could link to this page...
A great read; thanks for writing it! Please leave a note on my talk page when done. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 10:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is already being reviewed. See under the heading "GAN" above. While the topic is a nice variation from pop culture topics, I don't think the article is merely minor rewordings and additional footnotes  from GA status.
Peter Isotalo 15:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for taking so long to respond. Let me first say that general comments cannot be taken as a GA review unless they are explicitly stated to be so. User:Peter Isotalo did not proclaim that he was reviewing the article on the GA nominations page, and as for the GAN heading at the top of the page (mark: GAN, not GA review), that was put there by User:Auawise, who has already made it clear that his comments are not to be taken as a review. As such - even though all comments and remarks are taken into account - the review of the article is currently User:Dihydrogen Monoxide's responsibility.
I have implemented DM's suggestions, with the the following exceptions: I was not able to find any interwiki links after looking through the major language wikis. It should be said that until recently even the English wiki had no such article, so I guess this is not so surprising. As for putting this topic into the template, I didn't want to do that unilaterally, so I suggested it on the proper talk page. The "were" in  "family were the" refers to the officers that follow, not to the word "family", so I think the plural is correct. Many thanks! Lampman Talk to me! 13:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy to pass this if Peter is. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 13:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...he's on break, so I'm going to pass it. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 13:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I understand PI had some issues with the article, but he can put it up for reassessment if his opposition should be that strong. As for me, I take this as great encouragement, and will try to get around to using the suggestions made by various editors to improve the article further, with a view to an FA nomination. Lampman Talk to me! 14:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the latest additions. My concerns included unencyclopaedic language ("it is also the man who is the face of the house, he who holds the purse strings and all that rot"), unsourced additions (e.g. the first para) and the use of sources which are now unreliable (Mary Hayden writing in 1913 is not a reliable source for medieval gender studies in the 21st century - the field has moved on considerably). The editor concerned notes on his user page that he is editing as part of a school project, and that his grades depend on making the edits, which may have influenced the additions. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I'm working on the espanish version (i´m mexican) and i found out that there is not an equivalent concept in spanish for household. I wonder if someone here could help me. Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Himura (talk • contribs) 03:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC) 

How is this a good article without a lead section? 93 (talk) 05:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)