This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature 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.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
Source: Frappier, Jean (1936). Étude sur la 'Mort le roi Artu', roman du XIIIᵉ siècle : dernière partie du Lancelot en prose (in French). Geneva. p. 348. "Au Moyen Âge, l'emploi du procédé [de l'entrelacement] ainsi que la formule de transition rudimentaire (Le conte cesse de parler d'un tel et parle maintenant de tel autre), ne semble pas antérieur au Perceval de Chrétien de Troyes."
Reviewed:
Created by InfernoHues (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
Interesting:
QPQ: None required.
Overall: New, interesting, seems to be no copyvios, and with a source accepted AGF (offline). Two minor quibbles: one is that only Frappier is cited here and it seems to be his opinion alone, rather than a citation indicating that more than just him are saying that many literary historians say so. Could we consider:
Feel free to suggest other rephrasing. Two is that the lede should describe, briefly, what entrelacement is. If it's cited in the body, you don't need to re-cite it in the lede, but it does need to be present for the passing reader. That said, great article and welcome to Wikipedia, InfernoHues! ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ThaesOfereode I've added a citation that shows that it is the opinion of literary historians in general and added to the lead somewhat (citation 3 and 4 are basically the same but I don't know how to combine them)