From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|
Treaty of Orvieto was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Reviewed version: May 21, 2008
|
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: |
| WikiProject Law (Rated Start-Class) |
|
|
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. |
| Start |
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Low |
This article has been assessed as Low-importance on the assessment scale. |
| WikiProject Greece (Rated Start-Class) |
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece. |
| If you would like to participate, you can improve Treaty of Orvieto, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ. |
| Start |
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (comments) |
| Low |
This article has been rated as a Low priority article |
| Additional information: |
|
|
|
|
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:
 Referencing and citation: not checked- Coverage and accuracy: not checked
- Structure: not checked
- Grammar: not checked
- Supporting materials: not checked
|
|
| WikiProject Italy (Rated Start-Class) |
 |
Treaty of Orvieto is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
|
| Start |
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
| Low |
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
| Sicily WikiProject (Rated Start-Class) |
|
|
This article is supported by the Sicily WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Sicily on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the Project Page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page. |
| Start |
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
|
| Low |
This article has been rated as Low-Priority on the priority scale. |
|
[edit] References
At first glance the article looks under-referenced to me. There are simply too few sources, and even though I'm not an expert on the subject I suspect some of the most important sources might be missing. I'm not gonna weigh in on the review, but I'd suggest starting with David Abulafia's (ed.) The New Cambridge Medieval History: Volume 5, c.1198-c.1300 (pp. 153-4 et passim.) It's available online at Amazon. Lampman Talk to me! 15:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I'm leaving for a convention today, but I'll take a look when I get back. Even relatively specialized histories sometimes give this treaty pretty short shrift, probably because it didn't have the dynastic consequences of the Treaty of Viterbo. E.g., Riley-Smith's Crusades and Hazard's History of the Crusades v. III' (link) confine themselves to a sentence or two about how Charles brought the Venetians into the alliance. Choess (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I suspected as much. Still, it would be good to have a wider array of sources, both to ensure a balanced presentation, and to give readers an idea of where to go for further reading - if not so much on the specific subject, at least on the general period. Lampman Talk to me! 20:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Failed GA
[edit] Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of May 21, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: Pass
- 2. Factually accurate?: Fail
- Lack of citations & references is probably the primary reason for failing this article. Citation density is very low, and the article is missing citations for several key statements.
- 3. Broad in coverage?: Fail
- Although it does a relatively good job of covering the topic, I feel that many of the sections are quite short, and warrant some serious expansion.
- 4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
- 5. Article stability? Pass
- 6. Images?: Pass
When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 00:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I believe this fail is in error; the article doesn't fail by the quick-fail criteria, so it should have been put on hold for the editor to address the concerns. Furthermore, as User:Choess says above, he's away on some convention, so he should have been given a little time to incorporate more sources, as he's said he'd do.
- I agree that there should be more citations and references. However, since the topic is rather peripheral, I'm not sure it's possible to expand the article significantly without veering off on irrelevant issues. I'd say if the sources mentioned above (Abulafia, Riley-Smith, Hazard) and maybe a couple more are incorporated, and the article gets sourced throughout, it's a GA. The editor should get a few days to do this. Lampman Talk to me! 17:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
.svg/50px-Flag_of_Sicily_(revised).svg.png){kind=small}
