Talk:Magnus Barefoot/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 16:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
I've made quite a few copyedits, mostly to remove unnecessary wordiness/unencyclopedic language and fix minor spelling/punctuation issues. Please check them and let me know if you find any issues with my edits.

The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, without including new information. From what I can see, the information on naming (given in the third paragraph of the lead), at least, is not present anywhere else in the article.

Establishing his kingship, "Magnus may have gone on his first expedition to Scotland already during" - "already" is redundant

Establishing his kingship, "or if it is mixed up with his later expedition" - The meaning here is unclear. Perhaps "or if it has been mixed up with his later expedition in historical accounts" or something similar, if that is the intended meaning?

Establishing his kingship, "he saw with discontent upon the actions of Haakon," What? Also, what does his view of Haakon's actions have to do with his winter quarters? As these are discussed in the same sentence, I'm assuming they're related.

First Irish Sea campaign, "He attempted to install his own vassal king Ingemund in the Southern Isles in 1097, but he was soon killed in a revolt." Need to re-write to specify the "he" in the second clause, as I'm assuming it refers to Ingemund, who is not the "he" referred to in the first clause.

First Irish Sea campaign, "Magnus led his fleet, for this excursion only of six ships" What? Does this mean his fleet was only made up of six ships, or is it trying to say something different?

First Irish Sea campaign, " In any case, it came to nothing." Perhaps reword to, "However, no marriage resulted from these talks." if this in indeed what the sentence means.

Campaign in Sweden, "The background for the attack was that Magnus claimed the ancient border between Norway and Sweden, which went by the river Göta älv." A bit more background would be good here. Was the actual border different? When had it changed? Was there a previous war/campaign conducted by the Swedish that had taken land that Magnus was now claiming?

Second Irish Sea campaign, "he needed his assistance to crush Domnall." This sentence (or at least the clause) needs to be rewritten to avoid referring to two different men as "he" within a four word span.

Second Irish Sea campaign, "It has however been considered more likely" Considered by who?

Second Irish Sea campaign, "Muirchertach may have considered every possible measure to get rid of him." This is a very vague statement. Why "may have considered"? What is "every possible measure"?

Second Irish Sea campaign, "Alternatively, Muirchertach may have made..." I really don't understand what this whole sentence is trying to say.

Succession, "with his (alleged) nephew" whose nephew?
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
File:Kong-magnus-berrfott-menn.jpg has a caption that says it was drawn by Christian Krohg, but on the image page gives no author and has a source listed as Snorre Sturlasson. The image page should be expanded to include the author (and author death date, given that the tag used is author life + 70 years), and a better source (did it come from a book by Sturlasson?)

Same as above for File:King-magnus-kityre.jpg.

The images are from the same source as File:Magnus Berrfoetts saga-Egil hengt-W. Wetlesen.jpg (the 1899 edition of Heimskringla). I've updated it with information from the complete collection of images from the book found at Heimskringla (Soga om Magnus Berrføtt). Thhist (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Overall, this is a nice article on what appears to be a figure with a lot of myth and supposition surrounding him. I've done some copyediting, and left some suggestions above. Once these are addressed, I think the article should be good to go for GA status. For now, I'm placing the review on hold. Dana boomer (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll begin addressing the issues you brought up in a short time. Thhist (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I've now resolved all the issues you have mentioned, as well as a few more details. I also copyedited/rewrote the entire section on the Campaign in Sweden. If you don't have any further issues, I want to thank you for helping out with reviewing the article! Thhist (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for taking a few days to get back to this. I've now gone back through the article and made a few last copyedits. Your changes all look good, and address all of the issues I had with the article. So, I'm now passing the article to GA status. Very nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]