Talk:Eglinton Tournament

Name

So, there already was a page at Eglinton Tournament. That will need to be merged.

Some copy editing for tone is required here. Charles Matthews 19:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ehrm, yes. I'm afraid I haven't really got the hang of NPOV yet. Thank you. Artemis-Arethusa 21:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

GA fail

This review (Talk:Eglinton Tournament of 1839/GA1) has been open for a week, and it is my opinion that it will not reach GA status very soon. I realise a good amount of work was done by one editor to resolve some of the MOS issues, and I commend this. However, many issues I raised are still outstanding, most significantly the fact that this article does not contain any information about the tournament action itself: the nature of the jousts, how they were arranged, fought and resolved. Were they individual jousts or melees? Were they fought with real weapons? Were they choreographed? Were they round-robin, or knockout? Who won? How did the "knights" even know how to joust? Did they practise? And so on and so forth.

The GA-fail is not the end of the matter: you can renominate this article as soon as you feel it is ready for reassessment. All the best, Gwinva (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

To do list

Based on the GA review.

• Images
  • Choose a few appropriate images, place in relevant section and provide captions to explain significance to article. (See MOS:IMAGES)
  • Move all files with appropriate licensing to Commons, create category and provide a link from here.

• In progress. cmadler (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Content coverage
  • Describe the jousting, melee or other tournament activities. A reader is left without any understanding of what took place.
  • While claiming this is a reenactment of medieval jousts or tournaments (which?? They are not synonymous terms. See Hastilude, for a start), no context is provided for this. What were they trying to reenact? What aspects did they choose? What sources did they consult? Did they base it on actual events or customs, or was it made up?

• Lead is quite short for article of this size, and does not "summarise the most important points covered in [the] article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." See WP:LEAD.
• Fails WP:MOS in many aspects: needs a good copyedit for punctuation and formatting. (If you need help with this, ask at the Guild of Copy Editors.)
• References are a mess. They should be listed by author's surname, titles in italics, publishers details given. Some notes contain [1] style external links: no good. Websites need citing properly, with titles and keywords so they can be searched for or found if link goes dead, or if page is printed. (same applies for the external link section). Some references are just links in text: footnote and cite properly.
• This article abounds with weasel words, jargon and otherwise meaningless phrases. eg. "It was a deliberate set piece of Romanticism, in the face of social progress" (I can understand the Romanticism, but what does the rest mean?) "Astronomical costs"? How much? This needs solid grounding not vague terms (used later under accommodation as well: I can't believe that individual accommodation costs were as high as the whole tournament!). "the tournament was symbolic of romantic defiance in the face of modern practicality" is this a direct quote? (if so, cite it properly; if not, put in plain English)
• Includes some unfounded or strange conclusions, bordering on original research. "largely remembered for being rained out" (really? even now? More than anything else?). The statement "Medieval culture was widely admired as an antidote to the modern enlightenment and industrial age." is ref'd with "This is pretty much the entire thesis of Girouard's book." No good: such a commentary on Girouard's book is OR; it certainly can't stand as a citation. "It does not seem to have occurred to Lord Eglinton that other newspapers": says who? Is this OR?
• The "Background" section touches on the romanticism of the time, but does not connect the issue to Eglinton. The connection must be made, otherwise it's irrelevant (or WP:SYNTHESIS). (I'm left wondering what Walpole's novels and Strawberry Hill, let alone Freidrich and Austen - seemingly selected at random - have to do with this joust). Even the Percy link could do with a stronger connection. Was it the cause/inspiration of the joust? Or was the matter remembered and brought to add spice?
• "Early Victorian disappointments" What??? Did the lack of ceremony at the coronation influence the tournament or not? Where did Eglinton get the idea from? Were the rumours true, or did they inspire him? How is this a disappointment? Why is his personal history recorded here?
• Watch terminology. They're "harnesses" not "suits". Was the armour a "forgery" (ie passing itself off as authentic) or reproduction? Note that reproduction mistaken for authentic is not forgery. (Side note: "on display in 1963" only then? From then? Until then? Where is it now? Was that when it was discovered to be 19th C origin?)
• "There were some problems with the planning and location of the tournament." Yes, and? What were they? The imitation gothic house? Or the marshy land? What did they do about it?
• readers "(f)rom every county in the British Isles": direct quote needs citation
• "At the last minute" what kind of subject heading is that??? A heading should give some indication of what the section's about (even reading the section is not clear what is specific about this section.
• Participants: what's the significance of the knights' titles? Did they work as teams? What did the other participants do?
• "Aftermath": "After the tournament" (which we haven't heard about): covers some of the information discussed in "deluge" (re following day etc) should all be together. "It did however succeed in publicity terms." How? We only hear about it being satirised. Was it really the inspiration for later tournaments? Or were later ones inspired by the original medieval ones?
• "The 1989 re-enactment" - poorly written, uncited one sentence section. Do something better with this.
• see also: should only link things that are relevant to article but not mentioned or linked in main text

Problems

There needs to be more basic facts and less generalized personal pontificating, particularly in the lead section at the top of the article. AnonMoos (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 1 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 22:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Eglinton Tournament of 1839 → Eglinton Tournament – WP:CONCISE: There is no other Eglinton tournament from which to disambiguate this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.