# Talk:England in the High Middle Ages

This page contains some material from House of Plantagenet and England in the Middle Ages.--SabreBD (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I have edited the names of Richard I (1189-99) and John (1199-1216). Maymichael2 (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on England in the High 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/20081014050355/http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jmedhist to http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jmedhist
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) 05:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:England in the High Middle Ages/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tim O'Doherty (talk · contribs) 17:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

 
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Looks like a well-written and thorough article to me
It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): 

I feel like the lead paragraph might be too long here. I'd consider splitting it up into another paragraph in the lead, or condensing it. Maybe a bit more of an overview rather than a timeline; it's well written, though just a bit too long. I suggest the following changes:
considered the first Angevin king of England - feels a bit long. Maybe just remove it and save it for the rest of the article.
and Henry making a dramatic exhibition of penance - Ditto
Walter Scott's location of Robin Hood in the reign of Richard I and his emphasis on the conflict between Saxons and Normans set the template for later fiction and film adaptations. - I'd suggest removing this too. It's a bit long and is already in "Popular representations"
All fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
@Unlimitedlead: Cool, passed. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Looking further down, the article seems to be well written. I can't fault the "Normans" section at all, it flows very well and is easy to understand for non-experts. The "Angevins" section I only have very minor criticisms of: Shouldn't "High King of Ireland" be fully capitalised as a MOS:JOBTITLE, rather than a description? I also don't really get this sentence: "In the 1160s the deposed King of Leinster Diarmait Mac Murchada turned to Henry for assistance in 1167, and the English king agreed to allow Diarmait to recruit mercenaries within his empire". Shouldn't it read "The deposed King of Leinster Diarmait, Mac Murchada, turned to Henry for assistance in 1167; Henry allowed Diarmait to recruit mercenaries within his empire", or something similar? Unless I'm missing something, "in the 1160s" and "in 1167" is tautology/contradiction. Lower down, shouldn't it be "what miserable drones[...]" instead, given that it's a phrase? "Revolt of 1173–1174" shouldn't have a capital letter either. I don't see anything obviously bad in the rest of the article; I think the "Popular representations" section is some particularly good prose. Other than some minor copyediting, and condensing the lead a bit, I think that this would pass the well-written requirement easily. 

Should be all done now! Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

Again, I suggest reworking the lead a bit, but I'm not going to withhold this one.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section): 

Looking closely at the references, barring a few at the end, this is what I got. I've not repeated those by the same author:
Ann Williams (historian) - looks reliable, as a former Senior Lecturer in Medieval History
Richard Huscroft - looks reliable, has a doctorate in medieval history
Pauline Stafford - looks reliable, as Professor Emerita of Early Medieval History
Nick Higham - looks reliable, as Professor of Early Medieval and Landscape History
David Bates - looks reliable
Hugh Thomas - looks reliable
Ian Walker - can't find much on him, am willing to AGF on the source
David Carpenter - looks reliable, Professor of Medieval History
Larry Krieger, Kenneth Neill, and Steven Jantzen - can't find much on them, but willing to AGF on the source
Marjorie Chibnall - looks reliable
The Kaufmans -  similarly, can't find much information on either, but will AGF
J. O. Prestwich - looks reliable, fellow of Queen's College, Oxford
Frank Barlow - looks reliable, as Professor of History
C. Warren Hollister - looks reliable
Judith Green - looks reliable, Emerita Professor of Medieval History
Nicholas Hooper - seems generally reliable, looking at his works
Simon Schama - looks reliable, as University Professor of History and Art History
Lindy Grant - looks reliable,  professor emerita of medieval history
Rees Davies - looks reliable, Professor of History
Mike Ashley - can't find anything on him at all, AGF
Marcus Bull - looks reliable
W. Warren Lewis - can't find anything, AGF
Peter Ackroyd - looks reliable
Jean Favier - looks reliable
Charles Carlton - looks good, some of his works are used as refs in Charles I of England, which is a featured article
Jean Flori - looks reliable
Dan Jones - looks reliable
Ralph V Turner - looks reliable
Robert Bartlett - looks good to me
Philippe Contamine - looks reliable, although his name seems to have been misspelled in the ref
Edward Smedley - looks trustworthy
J. S. Hamilton - looks to be generally reliable
Danny Danziger and John Gillingham - looks good, are "medieval expert[s]"
Janet Burton - looks reliable, professor of medieval history
David C. Douglas - looks reliable
Mavis Mate - looks good
Susan Johns - looks good
Miri Rubin - looks reliable, Professor of Medieval and Early Modern History
Alan Forey - looks reliable, reader emeritus in history
Diana Webb - looks good, Senior Lecturer in History
Leonard Cantor - AGF
Christopher Dyer - looks reliable, Emeritus Professor of Regional and Local History
Stuart Prior - looks good to me
Mark Bailey - looks reliable, PhD in History
Gerald Hodgett - look good to me
Ian Blanchard - AGF
b. (citations to reliable sources): 

c. (OR): 

d. (copyvio and plagiarism): 

Earwig returns 70.8% "violation possible". This isn't brilliant, but I will assume good faith here, as it's obviously not done maliciously at all. Maybe something to look at closer though. Won't withhold.
It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects): 

Reading it, everything seems balanced, and no topic is given more airtime than the others, proportionally speaking. Looks solid.
b. (focused): 

Really impressed by how concise this is. Passes with flying colours.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

See 3a comment.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

Looking at the article history for the past two weeks, I fail to find a single revert.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): 

Can't fault it here at all. Well illustrated, good captions and good ALTs. Everything's suitably licensed as far as I can tell.
b. (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/fail: 

Altogether, I enjoyed reviewing this article. Really informative, well-written, succinct, and to the point. Again, some minor issues with the prose and the lead, but those can easily be resolved. I don't think Earwig is a deal-breaker here. Solid article. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you kindly for taking up the review! Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
(Criteria marked  are unassessed)

As I was reading through this article, I noticed that there were multiple uncited paragraphs. @Unlimitedlead:, as the GA nominator, would you or anyone else be interested in adding citations to these areas, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

The uncited paragraphs, whether they be factual or not, were added by another user after the GA review. Due to time constraints, I am unable to dig for citations for these statements, but others are welcome to. If not, then a deletion is fine by me. Thank you. Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2025 (UTC)