Talk:Treaty of Lödöse

Treaty of Lödöse was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 24, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed

Norse history and culture Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. 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.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sweden Low‑importance

	Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Norway

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: European / Nordic / Medieval

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	Nordic military history task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Reaper Eternal, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Treaty of Lödöse/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start to work through the below later.Hchc2009 (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, some minor changes proposed but looking good. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any further thoughts on the option of a final paragraph saying "what happened next"? (as per suggestion below) If you could confirm whether that would be possible, the rest of the review looks complete.Hchc2009 (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone very quiet. In the absence of resolution on the final paragraph question, I'm failing the article this go around, but I think it is almost there - all the other issues have been fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

Some minor changes proposed below:

"was above all shaped" > "dominated by"?
"Swedish province Värmland" > "province of Varmland"?
"The Norwegian king, to no avail, complained to the lawspeaker of Värmland and the Swedish king several times." > "The Norwegian king complained to the lawspeaker of Värmland and the Swedish king several times, but to no avail."?
"but because of internal conflicts" > "but because of their internal conflicts"
"the Norwegian plundering in Värmland" > "Norwegian plundering of Varmland"?
"According to the Norwegian saga, Sverris saga the future" > "According to the Norwegian saga Sverris saga, the future..."
"in the town Lödöse" > "town of Lodose"
"Lödöse was chosen as the meeting place because it was the nearest Swedish province " - nearest Swedish town? (the previous sentence said it was a town)
"they were scared and fled" > "became scared"?
"Instead, Birger Jarl, who was anyhow the de facto ruler," > "who was in reality the de facto ruler"?
"Birger Jarl and King Haakon agreed and promised" > "came to an agreement and promised..."

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

It's minor, but in the lead you say "the summer of 1249", but the summer bit isn't mentioned in the main text.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

Looks good to me.

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

Looks good.

(c) it contains no original research.

No OR found.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

I'd be really interested in a final paragraph saying "what happened next"; it wouldn't need to cover much, but, for example: did the treaty last? Did it restore peace?

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Looks good.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Neutral and fair.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Stable.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

Sweden 1250 cropped.png - the description of this could usefully be clarified; it currently says "Source: Sundberg, Ulf (1997) (in Swedish). Svenska Freder och Stillestånd 1249-1814. Arete. ISBN 91-89080-01-7. p. 20." - you might wish to add "Data from Sundberg..." or similar, to clarify that the picture itself doesn't come from the copyrighted book, only the data about the borders etc.

Erik-eriksson-laspe.gif - there's a slight issue with this one. The original seal is indeed older than 70 years and probably has no copyright, but what's been uploaded seems to be a drawing of the seal. The drawing itself would usually carry copyright (unless older than 70 years etc.), and there's no date for when the drawing was made. You'll need to provide a date for the drawing. (See Great Seal of King Stephen.jpg for a comparison of a similar item with a date.)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

All look good.

Thanks for the review. I will try to act on your suggestions during the upcoming days. P. S. Burton (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the status of this review? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 13:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message with P.S.Burton last weekend; I was going to close it as failed tomorrow unless the final issue was resolved. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]