Talk:Haraldr Guðrøðarson/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Working with you on Olaf the Black was very rewarding, so I'd be happy to give this a look through as well. Review coming soon. J Milburn (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The use of File:Family tree - male patrilineal descendants of Guðrøðr Óláfsson (d. 1187).png creates accessibility problems; images should not be used when tables can be used instead. Template:Family tree would probably be suitable. I'm not greatly concerned about this, and I'm happy to pass the article without it being fixed, but I thought it was something worth noting.
- I've switched to a wikified tree. One drawback is that it doesn't have a label or caption, so I placed it into it's own section and included a brief blurb.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That works, but perhaps it could be a subsection of "background"? Could we have a reference? J Milburn (talk) 10:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done and done.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little concerned that there is nothing at all about what we know of Haraldr before he took to the throne- not even "little is known of..."
- I guess I never included anything like that because I haven't seen anyone else mention it. I'm not sure where to place a statement like that. The way it starts off with the murder of Rögnvaldr; I'm just unsure how to fit a statement like that in there. It was easy with the lead. How would you tackle this?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess that, without a reference, it would be difficult to say even that without straying into original research. I do feel that the article feels incomplete without a mention of where he was/what he was doing before then (or, alternatively, a referenced mention of the fact that we don't know). I think how we do this depends on what the references say- if there's nothing in the references, then perhaps you could leave it as "the first mention in the Chronicle of Mann of Haraldr was..."- that would help clarify that we know nothing about him before then, without actually making the claim. J Milburn (talk) 10:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've added the 'first appearance' bit into the text and lead. Unfortunately I have seen anyone make a firm statement about what is and isn't known of him.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"chieftain named Domnall" Not convinced about the link- I think if we're gonna link to a name article, Wiktionary would be the place, but I worry that a link implies that there is an article on the person
- Understood. Unlinked.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure how the para on the miracle relates to everything else. Was this after he became king?
- The paragraph shows that the chronicle wants us to believe that his reign as king was an oppressive one - in contrast to the sons of Óláfr. I've reworded it to make it clear that it refers to his reign. To make it a bit more clear, I've divided the following para, and placed the part of it which mentions his takeover just before the miracle-paragraph.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The intentions of the invaders are unknown for certain: they may have intended to install Magnús as king;[19] at the very least, Eógan was likely looking for some form of compensation after being forcefully dispossessed of his mainland Scottish-lordship by Alexander II, King of Scots (d. 1249), for refusing to renounce his allegiance to Hákon." A little clunky
- I've tried to reword it a bit. I think a real copy-editor might fix this part up.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the "forced exile" section, there seems to be some confusion as to who was going to be crowned king- Eógan or Magnús
- The gist of it is that while obviously together they both wanted to seize the island, that perhaps Magnús was to govern it as king and Eógan was to govern large portions of the Hebrides (and possibly too much of the Hebrides for the taste of the Manxmen). McDonald doesn't specifically say if Magnús was to be king of the 'island (Mann)' or any other islands, so I don't want to say "Mann" as it might make it seem like McDonald meant Mann alone. A bit of the backstory is that in the 1150s, Eógan's ancestor Somairle/Somerled won the entire Kingdom of the Isles and drove out Magnús' ancestor from Mann itself; even though the Crovans crawled back after Somairle's death in 1164, the reality was that the two families split the Hebrides between them (the precise division is uncertain it may have been fluid), and the leading members of Somairle's descendants sometimes styled themselves, or were sometimes granted titles in Norway, that were similar to the 'King of the Isles' used by the Crovan dynasty. Eógan and Magnús were close; Magnús' wife was Eógan's daughter, and when Eógan was driven out of his Scottish-lordship he fled to Lewis.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Haraldr and Ívarr (mentioned above)" Probably not needed- avoid self references
- Fixed.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting story- I like the way he effectively rises from nothing, reigns for a few months, then disappears to nothing. You come close to drifting off topic a few times, but I do think everything is relevant. I will come back to have a closer look at the sources and images, but, at a glance, they look great. J Milburn (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The way you cite book volumes is inconsistent (compare Anderson with McDonald '97)
- Anderson had two volumes of his book. McDonald's is just one volume, but it is part of a series of books on Scottish history called Scottish Historical Monographs. I've removed "series #4" from the series part of the template, so it's not confused as a volume number. I'm certain someone can hunt down a book without a series number.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly inconsistent capitalisation, I think. As I said last time, article titles in sentence case, book titles capitalised is a good rule of thumb
- Fixed.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A vague date on the pictues of the kings would be useful. It's clearly PD, but a vague date would help clarify that.
- OK done. The one of Henry was drawn by Matthew of Paris. I'm not certain of the one of Hákon; Middle Ages no doubt.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the changes that have been made, I am happy to promote this article. The prose is still a tad choppy in places, but I believe that it is easily good enough for GA status. As with Olaf the Black, this article has real FA potential- it's well written, well researched, well referenced and feels complete. Although it's not that long, there's obviously very little known about this person, and there are already (significantly) shorter FPs on comparable figures- see, for instance, Coenred of Mercia. Again, a copyedit and maybe peer review would be the way to go if you're interested in FA status, and you're welcome to contact me if I can be of any further help. Good work! J Milburn (talk) 09:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]