Talk:Haakon IV

Untitled

I have made some extensive changes to this page, mostly in the form of an expansion of the existing text, but also some clarification and correction of mistakes. As I am a relatively new user of wikipedia, I forgot to write an edit summary of my changes, therefore I am writing this. If anyone reads this, I would appreciate your thoughts on whether it would be useful to put some sub-headers into the new article. Barend 12:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Hakonar saga gamla <-> hakonar saga hakonarsonar

I have only seen the saga referred to as 'hakonar saga hakonarsonar', and that is also the name of the copy of the original language version in my university library. The 'google-test' gives 20 500 Hakonar saga hakonarsonar, and 36 hakonar saga gamla. (Barend 16:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC))

As far as i know, the saga calls him 'the Old' only to distinguish him from his son Hákon 'the Young', who was crowned as his heir and co-ruler, but died before his father. Hákon IV died at the age of 60 or 61, wich was older than most medeaval kings (and most men), but not as exceptionally old that it would be the basis of a nickname. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.212.18.221 (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It's like calling someone 'the Elder'. BodvarBjarki (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"Sturlunga öld"-template?

Is the Sturlung-öld template really appropriate here? It's big, makes the article look messy, and only very peripherally connected to the topic of the article. I suggest deleting it.--Barend 12:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation Guide?

Tarnation! How does an English speaker pronounce this friggin' guy's name??

Try thinking of a carnivorous bird, and then say "Hawkon Hawkonson".--Barend (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that's a modern pronounciation; 'á' is just a long vowel a so it's pronounced like ahh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BodvarBjarki (talk • contribs) 11:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope, 'á' in Old Norse was, indeed, a long vowel, but it was also more closed than a short 'a'. It was like modern English 'aw'.--Barend (talk) 06:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Relations with Skule

It is good to see some good work done on this article again. I have an issue with the initial phrasing of Haakon's relationship with Skule, though. Saying he "shared the royal administration" with Skule until 1240, implies they were co-rulers, which they weren't. Skule was regent during Haakon's minority, but by 1240, Skule was a Duke and Haakon was king.--Barend (talk) 06:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Haakon IV of Norway/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 10:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 10:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments

From a quick read of this article and the references, this article appears to be at or about GA level, possibly well on its way to being a WP:FAC. Nevertheless I'm just going to review it against WP:WIAGA. Pyrotec (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Historical sources & Background and childhood -

• These two sections are compliant.

• Reign -

...Stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• This section appears to be fully compliant.

• Views on Haakon's reign & Children and marriage -

• These two sections are compliant.

• WP:Lead -

• This should both introduce the topic of the article and summarise the main points. It does both and is acceptable, although a bit more detail (or "meat") in the summary would help improve the the lead.

Pyrotec (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

An interesting an informative article

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   The Lead is acceptable as an introduction, but a bit more detailed summary of the main points would be beneficial. However, it's just about adequate to allow me to award GA-status as it is.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well illustrated.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I think this article could make WP:FAC although I suspect that the WP:Lead would need to be improved, i.e. a more detailed summary of the main points in the article, to get this article up to FA-standard.

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Its a good article and now A Good Article. Congratulations. Pyrotec (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Haakon IV of Norway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924060027/http://www.olympic.org/Assets/OSC%20Section/pdf/QR_4F.pdf to http://www.olympic.org/Assets/OSC%20Section/pdf/QR_4F.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)