Talk:Ragnall ua Ímair/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 11:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grabbing this one for a review shortly. Miyagawa (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay, here's the review at last.

Just reading through the first couple of paragraphs and you might need to take a look at the linkage there with WP:OVERLINK in mind. In particular, I think you could drop the England, Scotland, Wales links etc. I'd keep Isle of Man and Waterford etc linked as I wouldn't count them as "major" under the policy.
I freely admit I had to look up Capitalization in English as I wasn't sure about King/king in certain contexts. But with that in mind, I have to ask - why is king of Scotland in lowercase, while King of Northumbria is in upper? Later king of the Northumbrians is in lower, so I is that single uppercase example a mistake?
"chose Edward as father and lord" - needs a direct quote after the following comma. (It'll just be a repeat of cite #21 from the end of the sentence I suspect)
Likewise "king of the fair foreigners and the dark foreigners" needs a direct quote at the end of the sentence, which I imagine would be a repeat of cite #12 from the following sentence.
You can delink House of Yngling and Vestfold from the image caption as they're linked in the article text.
Is there a cite for note #4?

That's the lot. A very interesting read on a relatively little known figure in history to me. I always think that it's shocking given the length of time and the Kingdoms existing at the time that History lessons at British schools don't cover Viking settlements - at least when I was at school, it always made it sound like they sailed up and down the Eastern coast raiding abbeys and that was it. It's articles like this and a little too much Crusader Kings II that help to inform me. :) Miyagawa (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised I'd failed to @Retroplum: the nominator to let them know about the review. Sorry! Miyagawa (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's been a while since I've done anything with this article so it's been changed a little bit since I nominated it. I'll get to making the necessary changes as soon as I can. Retroplum (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, dealing with the points one by one:

Fair point re the links. I've removed the ones you suggested and also a handful of others. I took out all the duplicates I could find.
Yep, the uppercase was an error and I've corrected it.
Added citation.
Added citation.
Delinked.
Added citation.

Right I think that's all the points addressed. Agree about not learning about the Vikings, I had a similar experience. It's only lately that I've come to know very much about the Vikings by reading up just out of interest (I'm not unfamiliar with CKII either). Interestingly, it's by no means a dead field of study though, I created an article a few months ago for a Viking king who was only identified in 2011 (Airdeconut)! I've been slowly working through the notable Vikings of the Uí Ímair trying to get each article up to a decent standard. If I ever get round to it I hope to do the same for other Vikings too. Anyway, thanks @Miyagawa: for the review. If any more points need addressing just let me know and I'll get to them when I can. Retroplum (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, happy to promote now. Miyagawa (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]