Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle Ages/Assessment

Proposed deletion: Aratum

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Þingalið

I've just done a GA assessment on the article Þingalið. It's mainly OK, although short and possibly a bit pro- in its tone. My main concern with it is a feeling, and I can't really put it any higher than that, that it may be an OR synthesis. I've given some of my reasoning here. I suppose my question is: was the Þingalið really a largely Scandanavian standing army in the employ of the English kings for around 50 years? Grateful if someone with some background in this area could set me straight. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessing?

What's the mechanism/where's the webpage for identifying an article as (for example) "a must-have for a print encyclopedia"? Note that this relates to the importance of the subject, not the quality of the article's content. The reason I ask is that Theodora (6th century) is tagged as "unrated on the importance scale", yet it's clear where the subject matter falls on this portal's importance scale. Jmacwiki (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St John's Jerusalem

Substantial improvement and expansion of St John's Jerusalem has been recently undertaken, and I believe a re-assessment of the class and importance of the article may now be appropriate, although, of course, that will be for others to judge. Stellas4lunch (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwall Domesday Book tenants-in-chief

Cornwall Domesday Book tenants-in-chief has been proposed for deletion: please comment on the talk page--Johnsoniensis (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]