Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Constantine II of Scotland

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:23, 16 December 2007.

Constantine II of Scotland

Hurrah! A change from Anglo-Saxon kings. I must start by acknowledging the generous assistance of Mike Christie, Ben MacDui, and Ealdgyth with the article, and the previous help I had from the Deacon of Pndapetzim. If you don't like it, that'll be me.

The subject is about a century later than Wiglaf of Mercia, Eardwulf of Northumbria and Egbert of Wessex. He's most similar to Egbert in that he was seen later as a founder-figure of sorts, although unlike Egbert he wasn't an ancestor of many kings.

It's unlikely that our readers will be terribly familiar with the context, so the article does have quite a lot of that which should eventually be forked out into Scotland in the Early Middle Ages and related articles. Context can be expanded almost indefinitely in this kind of article, so if more context is needed more can certainly be added. I confess that the article tends to rather oversimplify and gloss over the historiographical debate. However, that is mainly peripheral to the subject, and where it isn't it's generally mentioned here. Any dissonance between the article title and content is entirely intentional. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I did a review of this article on its talk page, and Angus has addressed every concern I had. This is fine work. Mike Christie (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Objection
praise: well -referenced, well-written.
problems: -bad pictures, -no subpages organization, -a lot of the article talks about other people/events instead of about Constantin.
--Keerllston 21:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could be biased here, but I feel that the material covered by the second and third objections is context rather than unnecessary detail. If the articles on Edward the Elder, Æthelflæd, Æthelstan, Ragnall, Sihtric, Gofraid, Amlaíb, Viking Age Northumbria, the battle of Corbridge, &c, &c, should ever reach an adequate standard, then some of this could be done in summary style. If...
Can you be more specific regarding the illustrations? The maps can be improved, as can the family tree thing. The others are more of a problem. There are other free pictures of the Moot Hill at Scone, but they're all rather un-hill-like. There's a another image of the Monymusk Reliquary - Image:Brecshot.jpg - but I think that's not as good as the one in the article now. We have Image:DUNNOTTAR CASTLE Large.JPG. The castle is much later, but the site is rather similar I imagine. There's Image:Constantine II of Scotland.jpg, but I don't see that image as being "appropriate to the subject". Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - if working on other articles makes this one better - do so.
Illustrations - no illustration of the illustrious king himself - not even a fictional post-life or approximation - or even just what he would have worn. Ugly (completely imo POV :D) graph of family tree. The rest have little to do with the king himself - perhaps similar to the previous case and should really be part of other articles (which are currently amiss)- Wherein lies the inappropriateness of Image:Constantine II of Scotland.jpg? - it looks fitting as a main picture to me.

--Keerllston 11:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's fair to require that other articles be improved in order to pass this one for FA. On the other hand, Angus implies that some of the material could be condensed if the other articles were better; I'd suggest that this article should be written assuming those articles are good. (I don't see anything natural to cut, but perhaps you or Angus do see some fat to trim.) In either case I think the article needs to stand or fall at FA on its own merits. I will also just add that some background detail is quite common in this kind of article, because the period is not familiar to many readers.

With regard to the illustration Image:Constantine II of Scotland.jpg, this question has come up before in other medieval articles. That image is an imaginary depiction, probably from the 1911 Britannica, and has little or nothing to do with how Constantin looked. Our FAs on these kings have generally not included pictures unless they are interesting in their own right, as artwork; see Penda of Mercia and Ælle of Sussex for examples. Mike Christie (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to my comments regarding the prerequisite consisting of the improvement of related articles, to achieve FA status - I want to note that for this article to reach FA status it is necessary to improve it to FA quality, and that what I said was if improving other articles (leads to/is necessary to) the improvement of this article then improve other articles - if not (which I though was a rather un-constructive avenue of thought - less articles improved total :D - and also creating argument for little reason) then just improve this one -unilaterally --Keerllston 00:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which parts of the article do you think could be slimmed down? Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation of Objections
nominator's blurb notes "[article tends to] gloss over the historiographical debate" - is it possible to create a section called historiography and adequately treat historiography therefore?--Keerllston 00:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At present I can't find anything discussing this in any depth. The article covers the main points of recent historical debate, or at least it does since I added something on Constantín's imaginary brother "Domnall son of Áed" just now. Compared to "Kenneth MacAlpin" or Giric/"Gregory the Great", there doesn't seem to be much in the later medieval and early modern mythopoeia that passed for Scottish history at the time concerning Constantín. Victorian accounts differ mainly in that historians then tended to see the "kingdom of Alba" as being almost indistinguishable from the later "kingdom of the Scotland". What early/mid C20th historians said, that I don't know. But when I find out, and if it's of interest, I'll certainly add it as appropriate. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well written and fascinating. Knowing nothing about the subject matter, I was able to jump right in and comprehend the history and significance. I see no problems with the images themselves, but I would suggest featuring Image:Early Alpinid kings.svg more prominently. Albeit not visually stunning, it's a very helpful visual aid, especially to those like me who are ignorant about every other word in this article. :) When the image is that small, however, the writing looks like chicken scratch and (to me, at least) it only makes sense to view it with the prose. When it's opened it in a new tab or window by itself, there is no context, and switching back and forth between two tabs (for me, at least) is tedious and disorientating. I have only one note on the prose: there's an issue of repetition of the phrase "came into conflict" which appears twice in two back to back sentences in the lead. Great work! María (habla conmigo) 20:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition fixed. I'll replace the current family tree with something more legible. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. For the record, and as noted above, like Mike Christie, I made some pre-FAC editing suggestions. They have been dealt with and I too think this is fine work. I had a hunt for some images, but the best I could up with was a modern one of Bromborough cross, and I fear the mock-Tudor background would not work well here. I look forward to the improved family tree. Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 09:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.