Jump to content

Talk:Guðrøðr Magnússon/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 15:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Very interesting; happy to take a look. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "massive" strikes me as a little informal.
  • "and became the last ruling king of the Crovan dynasty" This is a little odd; the fact he was the last wasn't immediately apparent upon his death, presumably; you could try "to succeed him; he proved to be the last ruling king of the Crovan dynasty".
  • "If Magnús' own demise did not signify the end of an independent kingdom in the Isles, the events of the following year certainly did" I've no doubt that this is right, but it strikes me as a little judgemental to be presented in Wikipedia's neutral voice.
  • "Gallovidian" is a term that will not be familiar to many readers.
  • "(died ×1296) What does the cross mean? That's not notation I'm familiar with, which suggests that it won't be familiar to many readers
  • Multiplication signs are used by historians in date ranges. This one means "no later than 1296". Here's a quotation from New Hart's Rules: The Oxford Style Guide viewable on Google Books: When referring to events known to have occurred between two dates historians often employ a multiplication symbol: 1225 x 1232 (or in some styles 1225 × 32) means 'no earlier than 1225 and no later than 1232'. The multiplication sign is also useful where one element in a range is itself a range: 1225 × 32–1278. I've wiki-linked "×" which redirects to "Multiplication sign" where this is covered. I've piped "c." in John I Comyn's death-date to "circa", and the first instance of "fl." at the beginning of the article is already piped to "floruit".--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If the aforesaid hostages of 1266" First, no hostages were actually mentioned, and, second, you should avoid self-references. You could go for something like "The populations of the territories passed to Alexander III"
  • The hostages are referred to in the last sentence of the preceding paragraph ("Scottish exchequer records also reveal that the Scottish Crown held several Manx hostages as a means to insure order on the island"). I didn't realise "aforesaid" was poor form on Wikipedia. I've just realised that I've overused the term in articles I've recently worked on, so I'll have to take care of those too. Anyway, I've removed the word and the year from the sentence, so now it's just "If the hostages were still held by the Scots a decade later...".--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the aforesaid Alan" Again, this is a self-reference. I personally like it (it reads well!) but there are good reasons for avoiding it on WP.
  • "lightly-armed and poorly trained rebels were soundly crushed by well-armed Scottish warriors" You should probably be consistent with your dash use- i.e., poorly-trained.
  • "ten times fifty, three times ten and five and two did fall; O Manx race, beware lest future catastrophe you befall" Perhaps you could provide this in its original language (I'm guessing Latin?) A footnote may be preferable to inline.
  • Do we know the identity of Guðrøðr's wife?
  • Perhaps the third paragraph of the "rise and fall" section could be labelled "aftermath" or something.
  • Could you explicitly state somewhere that the identity of Guðrøðr's mother is unknown?
  • Is Moore a "primary source"? Otherwise, your sourcing looks impeccable.
  • I used it as a primary source for the English translation of the "O Manx race" bit. Other translations I've come across for this passage are worse in my opinion. For example, one starts off: "Ten L, thrice X, with five and two did fall".--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final point; I'm getting very, very few hits on Google Scholar and Google Books when I search for this person. Is there an alternative spelling or alternative name which I should be searching for?

A very interesting and well-put-together article. It's a shame that we don't (yet) have an article on the wider rebellion; I think some might complain that this article is basically just an article about the rebellion, but I've no doubt that the subject is notable enough in his own right for an article, and this article looks great. I'm sure I'll be happy to promote after a few fixes have been made. Please double-check my small edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Josh, thanks for reviewing this. I think I've addressed everything.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I made a final few tweaks and I'm happy to promote now. A pleasure to read; it's great that you're working on this area, which I imagine (based on my own experience) is not well-known. I look forward to seeing what you produce in the future. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Josh.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guðrøðr_Magnússon/GA1&oldid=741658500"