 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Move To The Brus
editShouldn't the title reflect that? Like, shouldn't it be italizaed?96.53.149.117 (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Northern English
editThe Bruce: W. M. MACKENZIE, M.A., F.S.A. (Scot.) LONDON ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK 1909
"The language of the Bruce is Northern English, the dialect spoken north of the Humber. Barbour himself calls it “Inglis” (Bk. IV. 253), and Scottish writers down to the sixteenth century do the same. The name “Scots” is therefore a term of pure convenience, signifying the English spoken within the political borders of Scotland, which continued to be an independent literary medium after the Northern English of England had ceased to be such, and had yielded place to the standard dialect of Chaucer and his successors. But the language of the Aberdeen Barbour is substantially that of the Yorkshire Richard Rolle."
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/44292/44292-h/44292-h.htm#Page_511 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.38.110 (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Lead - reversions
editUser:Mutt Lunker - Please justify your reversion, on the grounds of:
'"this is rambling, poorly-expressed & barely comprehensible - such a level of detail goes in the main body (if not already there); various dubious MOS choices "
and clearley state specifically what you object to. A sentence, without resorting to throwing a selection from the List of fallacies, as to what is wrong with the revised lead, and how your reversion improves the article, let alone address the long outstanding POV, and the lack of sources, would be appreciated. If you wish to be constructive, please suggest an alternative lead, to address the highlighted issues.
A.j.roberts (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'd point you to MOS:INTRO: Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article. The lede should not be a detailed list, in one very long sentence, of every aspect of the work. Such details could be laid out in the body of the article, if they are not already there. I have no doubt your intention is of good faith but you demonstrate the same convoluted, fractured sentence construction in your post above that you do in your edit. Sorry if that seems blunt but you do not express yourself well. The existing text is not "(my) version" and if the alternative is yours, the former is distinctly preferable. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)