Talk:Ímar mac Arailt/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 10:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling with the first footnote. Why are you talking about Echmarcach? Is that an error?

Yep, an embarrassing error. Fixed.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Such a relationship would have meant that Ímar was nephew of the latter's son" Well, not necessarily- he could be have a son of the latter's son. I assume you mean something like simply "If so, Ímar would have been a nephew of the latter's son...".

I've reworded the paragraph to show his father's name first. Using "the latter" was a mistake. How's it look now?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Although there is no direct evidence that Echmarcach controlled Mann at this point in his career" Is "career" the standard term, here?

I think career is an okay term, but I reworded the sentence to "Although there is no direct evidence that Echmarcach controlled Mann by this date" which I think works better.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be expected that the king of Dublin controlled Mann and/or that Mann would be friendly to the king of Dublin? If not, I'm not sure of the significance of "Sitriuc does not appear to have taken refuge on the island after his expulsion from Dublin" is.

I've added a sentence noting that Sitriuc's realm appears to have included Mann before his fall from power. The thing is that that Dublin and Mann seem to have been springboards from which a ruler of one could acquire the other.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know what outwith means, but I'm Cumbrian; I'm not sure how familiar it would be to a lot of readers.

I switched to outside.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"In fact, Þórfinnr's predatory operations in the Irish Sea region may have contributed to Echmarcach's loss of Dublin in 1038.[29] Just as Echmarcach may have seized upon Knútr's demise to expand,[21] it is possible that the vacuum caused by Knútr's death allowed Þórfinnr to prey upon the Irish Sea region.[29]" The second sentence doesn't seem to follow from the first; I can see the comparison between Echmarcach and Þórfinnr, but this seems to be unrelated to (and chronologically prior to) "Þórfinnr's predatory operations" contributing to "Echmarcach's loss of Dublin", which is currently unexplained. (Unless I'm missing something?)

That last sentence was an attempt at summing-up a commonality in this paragraph and the one before. The commonalty being the idea that Knútr's death led to Echmarcach's expansion throughout the Irish Sea region, and the idea that Knútr's death led to Þórfinnr's intrusion into the same region. I've removed the sentence. I suppose it was just bloat.

What's an insigne?

I've changed to "insignia". The Erskine ref uses "insigne" and "insignia" interchangeably.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"the island itself" I assume you mean the island of Ireland, and not Rathlin Island?

I meant Rathlin Island. I changed "the island itself" to "Rathlin Island".--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"from which this annal draws upon" should be either "from which this annal draws", "which this annal draws upon" or "upon which this annal draws". Perhaps the third would would be the most elegant.

Ok, I've used your last suggestion.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"destruction of Hywel ab Edwin, King of Deheubarth" Is destruction the right word?

Well, Hywel not only lost the engagement but also his life. I've changed it "defeat".--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Regarded by the contemporary Welsh as an outstanding unifier of Wales,[72] it is apparent that Gruffudd's adversaries generally utilised foreign military support from Ireland's Viking enclaves" I don't understand this sentence. What is the first clause referring to?

It was just an attempt to mush together the fact that Gruffudd was regarded as a sort of Welsh patriot and that he battled against foreign fighters. I've removed it. The real point of the paragraph is to convey the fact that Gruffudd had to face threats from Norsemen like Ímar, and that Ímar could have aided Hywel against Gruffudd.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would a wikilink be appropriate for "Vikings"? I understand that the term is used to mean a number of things.

Done.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You do a great job of setting out some pretty tricky stuff; I had little trouble following the narrative and the various possibilities. I really enjoyed reading this article; I'll be back for a closer look at the images and sources. From a first look, though, this article is very strong, and will no doubt be promoted soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:16, 4 June 2016 (

Comments on sourcing and images

The sourcing is, of course, fantastic. The images are fine. I would be happy to promote without any changes being made. However, in case it's useful, I have a few comments:

I'm not sure I see the value in providing "via Google Books" or "via Academia.edu" without providing a link. With Google Books especially, the book will be identical, so there's little value in mentioning it without the link. (And, I'm now musing, I'm not keen on Google Book links anyway, as different users are going to have different levels of access.)

I use those via tags just to show where I read the source. I figure that if a reader wants to double-check a source all they need to do is google it and they'll find what I've read (like "Harold Godwinson in Wales" Academia.edu). I've noticed sometimes that Wikipedians' direct links to Google Books aren't viewable for me, and that sometimes previewable books switch to merely 'snippet view' or even nonviewable over time. A book I've relied upon in various other articles is Scotland's Historic Heraldry: this book used to be previewable, and luckily I snapped a couple screenshots of it way back, but now it's just snippets and pretty much unusable for double-checking. The thing about Academia.edu articles is that, I imagine that the publishers regard them as blatant copyright violations. I figure that the value of using the tags is that they let a reader know where I've got a source, and they let the reader known where they can get it if they want to read it themselves. Its a way of pointing them to a source without directly advertising it. I don't like the idea of Wikipedia articles mass-linking to things being sold on Google and Amazon, etc.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing a year on the DeVries source?

Yep. Fixed now.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd do the caption of the multiple images more like this (I self-reverted). Your call.

The reason why I didn't do it like that is because I noticed that the images are stacked vertically when using the Wikipedia mobile app in Android. Here's a quick link to the mobile version of the article showing stacked images.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing else jumps out at me. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I've addressed everything.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great, your replies deal with everything quite comfortably. I'm happy to promote at this time; I actually think that this article would have a fair chance at FAC. Have you considered nominating it? Josh Milburn (talk) 08:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Josh. I would like to try for an FA some day, but I haven't got think enough skin at the moment.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]