Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David I of Scotland

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 18:32, 22 February 2007.

David I of Scotland

[edit]

Have been working on this article for a while in my user space. I've had to reduce the page significantly is size, which is always heart-breaking, and involved the removal of what I considered the coolest bits. As a result, the page now has half a dozen "daughter pages". The problems it may currently have - if any - are of the kind most likely to be identified by the extra thoroughness involved here. It's my opinion that this is the right moment for an FA nomination ... but judge for yourself. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't you think it's still rather long? How about splitting off the Davidian revolution? DrKiernan 08:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has been, at Davidian Revolution, but more ruthless summarisation in the main article is always an option. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi DrKiernan. The article's actually only around sixty in text; the large amount of notes is making it larger. What I'd like to know is, would cutting the article in size any more actually be worth it? I'm not sure, but this is the kind of thing where many people have to add their voice. The Davidian Revolution content is pretty important ... and lots of the other sections of the article have been cut to make room for it. Now, I'm perfectly willing to cut the Davidian Revolution section more down to size; but because I regard this material as so important, if I did so I'd have to bring the actual Davidian Revolution article up to a free standing FA quality article too. Anyways, tell me what you think ... anyone else for that matter too. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There isn't much left to cut and create other articles from. I don't think we have to keep every article extremely short if we provide a detailed index of contents for the reader. Wandalstouring 12:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support high quality article, well written and illustrated and very well referenced. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Impressive, well written, but I have many nitpicks. May support later.
  • Changing to Support: good continuing reaction to many nitpicks (including, but not limited to, mine), thorough, beautiful images, excellent job. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In heading, link the year per WP:DATE.
    • Why "William Rufus" throughout, when our article calls him William II? Especially since this article is "David I" not "David Some-other-nickname".
    • Capitalization: "King of the English" but "king of Moray"? Similarly Kingdom of Scotland but kingdom of Northumbria? "bishop of Ostia" but "Bishop of Durham"? Most obvious: "archbishop of York" and "Archbishop of York"? Inconsistencies throughout The article, Please go Through with Fine toothed Comb.
    • "bore to him a son" - unnecessarily archaic phrasing
    • "was spurious to say the least" - last 4 words unnecessary
    • "is the independence-loving" - "was", surely?
    • "It is clear that neither one of these interpretations can be taken without some weight being given to the other." - whoah! Do some historians favor one and some the other? If so, we have to say which favors which. Right now we're writing that every historian treats both equally, which seems unlikely given what I know of historians.
    • Remove period from "chronicle records.[65] as well as". In fact rephrase that sentence, otherwise the stories are entering the enslavings.
    • "was met by force of knights" needs an "a"
    • Maybe at least stub Battle of Clitheroe?
    • "The Battle of the Standard, and the following encounter came to be known." - "as", maybe?
    • "along side"->"alongside"?
    • Cite the Richard of Hexham quote, I think there's a rule that all quotes need a citation.
    • Davidian Revolution section can be shortened since there is a separate article just for it. But I won't push it, as I'm being assailed for length myself in the FAC just below. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for your time and comments, AnonEMouse; much appreciated. Here are my comments and responses:
      Why "William Rufus" throughout, when our article calls him William II? Especially since this article is "David I" not "David Some-other-nickname".
      He is associated strongly with this nickname; e.g. the main scholarly survey of his reign, by Frank Barlow, is William Rufus
      Capitalization: "King of the English" but "king of Moray"? Similarly Kingdom of Scotland but kingdom of Northumbria? "bishop of Ostia" but "Bishop of Durham"? Most obvious: "archbishop of York" and "Archbishop of York"? Inconsistencies throughout The article, Please go Through with Fine toothed Comb.
      I think you got me here. I was following different rules at different stages of the article writing. I did that with a few things, but forgot to get around to fixing that.
      "bore to him a son" - unnecessarily archaic phrasing
      fixed
      "was spurious to say the least" - last 4 words unnecessary
      fixed
      "is the independence-loving" - "was", surely?
      fixed
      "It is clear that neither one of these interpretations can be taken without some weight being given to the other." - whoah! Do some historians favor one and some the other? If so, we have to say which favors which. Right now we're writing that every historian treats both equally, which seems unlikely given what I know of historians.
      It's more that certain historians lend more weight to one than the other. No group, after all, can argue that David had no ambition, and no group can argue that he didn't wasn't involved with English kings. I've made it clearer that the two interpretations are not really rivals; although it is common to hear this topic debated in more informal circumstances.
      Remove period from "chronicle records.[65] as well as". In fact rephrase that sentence, otherwise the stories are entering the enslavings.
      tried to fix this.
      "was met by force of knights" needs an "a"
      fixed.
      Maybe at least stub Battle of Clitheroe?
      Sure, I can open a stub. I've relocated for this weekend, and don't have access to the particular books I'd need for this article, but a stub's no problem.
      "The Battle of the Standard, and the following encounter came to be known." - "as", maybe?
      fixed.
      "along side"->"alongside"?
      fixed.
      Cite the Richard of Hexham quote, I think there's a rule that all quotes need a citation.
      this passage is governed by the following footnote; since that may not be obvious unless the footnote is read, I'll move it for clarity.
      Davidian Revolution section can be shortened since there is a separate article just for it. But I won't push it, as I'm being assailed for length myself in the FAC just below. :-)
      This is hard for me to react to; two people here do not support cutting it, and two do. At this stage, I shall wait to see what others think.
      Good luck with your own FAC. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I would prefer it a bit shorter. The contents seem overwhelming at the moment and many of the sections have only one (albeit lengthy) paragraph. Also:
  • Image sizes shouldn't be set unless there's a specific reason to do so, per MoS.
  • For the few external links used in "References", accessdates are needed.
  • The "See also" section doesn't seem very useful, and is in the wrong place per WP:MSH.
  • Check that dates are wikilinked where appropriate for date preferences to apply.
  • the only way to understand David's early career is with reference to the great political figures around him. - cite? Who says it's the only way?

There are numerous issues with the prose; starting from the beginning:

  • The early years of David I's life are the most obscure in his life - clumsy repetition of "life".
  • Before he became a great political magnate in his own right by the year 1113, the only way to understand David's early career is with reference to the great political figures around him. - mess of a sentence. "Before he became a magnate by 1113" is grammatically incorrect. And then a sudden switch to how a hypothetical person can understand David's early career. The meaning's there but it's difficult to find.
  • David was born at some point between 1083 and 1085 - "at some point" is redundant, people understand that being born won't last for 2 years.
  • probably the eighth son of King Máel Coluim III, and the sixth and youngest produced by Máel Coluim's second marriage to Queen Margaret. - it's unclear whether the "probably" applies to both statements or just the first.
  • allegedly after hearing the news of the family deaths - allegedly is in words to avoid. Who alleges it?
  • We cannot be certain what happened next, - shouldn't use "we", per MoS.
  • claims that Domnall forced his three nephews into exile - claims is also in words to avoid (and used in the following sentence).
  • and sometime in 1094 marched into Scotland. - again, "sometime" is fairly redundant.
  • by the end of the year Donnchad himself was slain - I think there's a problem with the grammar again. Isn't being slain a one-time event that can't happen "by" a certain date. "Himself" is redundant. Perhaps could be rephrased in the active voice.

A lot of the paragraphs are very long, making it difficult to read, and are made up of lots of short sentences making it feel disjointed. Needs a proofread and copyedit. There is lots and lots of good here (top-notch referencing, quality images, very comprehensive) but it isn't there yet. Trebor 22:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hi, thanks for your input, Trebot. Lemme respond to you to:
      - mess of a sentence. "Before he became a magnate by 1113" is grammatically incorrect. And then a sudden switch to how a hypothetical person can understand David's early career. The meaning's there but it's difficult to find.
      Originally, this sentence read "by the year 1113", and was changed to "by 1113"; don't see why it's grammatically incorrect. "By 1113" is used because there is some unclarity about when exactly he became a territorial magnate, and the first certain date is late 1113.
      David was born at some point between 1083 and 1085 - "at some point" is redundant, people understand that being born won't last for 2 years.
      Yep, you're correct; although in fairness that kind of phraseology is kinda common in history writing , perhaps because it makes it clearer that the date is unknown.
      probably the eighth son of King Máel Coluim III, and the sixth and youngest produced by Máel Coluim's second marriage to Queen Margaret. - it's unclear whether the "probably" applies to both statements or just the first.
      The explanation for this is in the following note, but I've altered the wording to make this clearer, adding "certainly".
      allegedly after hearing the news of the family deaths - allegedly is in words to avoid. Who alleges it?
      The source in the following footnote alleges it. That is a common way of wording such things, and the usual understanding is that the accuracy of the source is in question, without being directly analysed. So, don't have a problem with it, impossible to rephrase without lengthening, so just deleted the statement.
      We cannot be certain what happened next, - shouldn't use "we", per MoS
      Well, changed it to "it is not certain"
      claims that Domnall forced his three nephews into exile -
      The page you link, WP:WTA, states of the word "claims" - "In this sense, it carries a very strong connotation of dubiousness: by using it, you suggest that the assertion is suspect." And yeah, that's exactly what I'm doing. This is not a news article reporting on a contemporary figure, it's fine to use this kind of word IMHO. Sources from this period are naturally suspect. No historian even a little familiar with medieval Scotland has to explain that Fordun and the Chronicle of Melrose may be open to doubt as sources. I've changed it, but I totally disagree with the change.
      and sometime in 1094 marched into Scotland. - again, "sometime" is fairly redundant.-
      Not really, it communicates that the exact point is unknown; it isn't in the slightest bit redundant.
Okay, perhaps this is a matter of style. I automatically infer from "and in 1094 marched into Scotland" that it means "at some point in 1094" but others might not.
Changed the wording anyways. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • by the end of the year Donnchad himself was slain - I think there's a problem with the grammar again. Isn't being slain a one-time event that can't happen "by" a certain date. "Himself" is redundant. Perhaps could be rephrased in the active voice.
      Again, this is not redundant; it happens "by the end of the year" because it is known he was slain sometime this year, but not in the next. As events in the same year have already been narrated, this "redundant" usage is in fact essential.
Redundancy was referring to "himself". If you think it's alright then leave it; I just find it slightly jarring to read "so-and-so was slain by the end of the year".
OK, got ya. Got rid of the "himself". Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A lot of the paragraphs are very long, making it difficult to read, and are made up of lots of short sentences making it feel disjointed. Needs a proofread and copyedit. There is lots and lots of good here (top-notch referencing, quality images, very comprehensive) but it isn't there yet.
      Whoever said this kind of paragraph length is bad? Sometimes people offer objections which can be dealt with, sometimes they are just subjective and can't be dealt with. I think the paragraph lengths are good, but that's just me. Again, with the "claim" thing, you maybe don't like it, but to me it is proper phraseology for history writing. If there are other like thing you disapprove of, I cannot be expected to predict what these are. Maybe it does need another few minor proofreads - they always do - but you can be sure it'll get another couple from me alone even in the next day. Anyways, sorry it's not getting your vote. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph lengths are, of course, a matter of personal preference. I find them harder to read once they pass around six sentences, particularly with the large number of subsections used in the article but others may see it differently. Don't change "claim" if you feel that there is unambiguously doubt over what the source says; you are much more knowledgeable in this area than me, so use your best judgement. (And don't forget about my non-prose points; they're irritatingly picky I know.) Trebor 00:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I changed them anyways to be safe. Sometimes I think one thing, then 20 people come along thinking the opposite. The length thing is an issue; I'm perfectly willing to cut some sections ... i.e. the Revoltion section, if I can be sure that that won't arouse opposition. The latter is my worry ... to be honest, I think they'd have a point if I cut some parts and they objected. It would be nice if some other users could comment on this. It would help if I knew, for instance, if the two users who've supported the current length regard it as important, or if they just don't mind. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is splintering slightly with user talk, I'd prefer to keep it all here if that's alright. Other opinions (particularly from people with background knowledge) would be very useful. I definitely don't want to be dictating any changes. Trebor 00:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, all I can do is wait. In the mean time, I've given the article another heavy copyedit. I'd be surprised if there are still many problems. Like I said, splitting many of the paragraphs can easily be done in theory, and I'm not averse to trimming it some more. All I worry about is the damage the latter could do to the article in respect of other users. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, assorted minor style problems and ambiguities:
  • Thanks for your comments. I've tried to respond to your comments as best I can. See following:
  • David spent most of his childhood in Scotland, but in 1093 political events forced him into exile in England. In England he became subject to Norman cultural influences and a hanger-on at the court of King Henry I of England.
Too many uses of 'England'.
The third one is the England in the unpiped Henry I of England. Got rid of some of the Englands; now there is only one. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • During his reign David became a great "reformer". The term "Davidian Revolution" is used by many scholars to summarise the changes which took place in the Kingdom of Scotland during his reign.
The first sentence is redundant.
  • Beginning to think redundancy ain't such a bad thing. Deleted it anyways.
  • The result of the invasion was at first indecisive, but after a few months the English and French soldiers given to Donnchad by King William were massacred, and by the end of the year Donnchad was slain by Domnall's ally, Máel Petair, mormaer of Mearns.
'The result of' is unnecessary, that the soldiers were provided by William is implied, the second 'Donnchad' could be changed to 'he'. Use killed instead of 'slain'.
  • Despite the setback, William Rufus did not give up, and in 1097 he sent Donnchad's half-brother Edgar into Scotland. The latter was more successful, and was crowned King of Scotland by the end of 1097.
Why is this glossed over compared to Donnchad's defeat? It might be worth going into more detail here, mentioning Edmund of Scotland for example.
  • Well, there is no like record of the course of events, we only know the result. The only way of getting into it is by explaining the course of Donnchad's invasion, which was the same resistance. Could add a sentence about Edmund, but it would be along the lines of "another brother, Edmund, appears to have sided with Domnall". It's just a case of using judgment as to what is important enough to mention in an article which has to be concise.

Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • King Edgar was a young man, only a few years older than David, and another of David's older brothers, Alexander, was alive and well and closer to the throne than David. David was in fact so far away from becoming king that Ethelred, his older brother and superior in line to the succession, had given himself up to a career in the church.
These two sentences contain a lot of redundant information and awkward phrasing; avoid unneeded phrases like 'alive and well' and 'in fact'. Three uses of 'David' in the first sentence is excessive.
  • Replaced "alive and well" with healthy. Got rid of "in fact", but don't really understand why I had to; it's a following statement; it is of course, literally reduntant, but adding meaning is not generally the point of such particles. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The two sentences are still quite clunky. How about 'King Edgar was only a few years older than him and another brother, Alexander, was healthy and closer to the throne.' Yes, Ethelred gets the boot, but if Edmund doesn't merit a mention here, why should Ethelred?
  • Moreover, when William Rufus was killed and Henry Beauclerc seized power, David's fortunes got even better.
'Moreover' is unnecessary. 'fortunes got even better' doesn't sound right.
  • Although he remained for some time a princely hanger-on, the marriage made David the brother-in-law of the ruler of England. Although still a youth, from that point onwards David was a more important figure at court, with a much brighter future than he previously had.
Two sentences starting with 'although'. 'than he previously had' is redundant. 'for some time' has little descriptive value.
  • Despite his Gaelic background and childhood, by the end of his stay in England, David was a fully fledged Normanised prince.
'in England' is redundant. Did he actually have a 'Gaelic background and childhood', given his mother wasn't Gaelic?
  • David's time as Prince of the Cumbrians marks the beginning of his life as a great territorial lord. The year of these beginnings was probably 1113, the year in which Henry I arranged his marriage to an English heiress and the year in which for the first time David can be found in possession of "Scottish" territory.
Too many uses of 'the year'. 'of these beginnings' is redundant. The use of quotation marks throughout this article is questionable, better to replace them with unambiguous descriptions. It should be made clear that David gained possession of land in England via his marriage.
  • Guilty "the year"s changes to "when". I believe the consequences of that marriage was originally mentioned in that introductory paragraph, but I made the decision to cut it thinking the marriage, the consequences of which are mention in the article intro and the text following the section intro. Also "heiress" rather than just "female" kinda implies he got some kind of benefit from it. Not sure many would miss that implication. But, changed "heiress" to "heiress of vast estates in central England" "Scottish" is in quotation marks because was not thought of as Scottish then, but is now. Anyways, changed "Scottish" to "territory in what later became Scotland".Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it necessary to state that Henry arranged the marriage in what is a mini-intro, or that the estates were 'vast'? It just replicates what is said later on. How about 'The year was probably 1113, when he married the heiress of estates in England and definitely possessed territory in what is now Scotland.'
  • Seizure of inheritance
Isn't 'seizure' a bit strong, considering that there was no bloodshed?
  • You think so; it was taken from Alexander through threat of force. Not sure I agree, but changed "seizure of" to "Obtaining the". 19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • According to Oram, it was only in 1113, when Henry had returned to England, that David was at last in a position to claim his inheritance in southern "Scotland"
Richard Oram should be wikilinked. Again, avoid quotation marks. This sentence is rather confusing unless you read David, Prince of the Cumbrians. How accepted are Oram's ideas and is there any hard evidence for them?
  • There is more info about this in both the notes and the daughter article. Oram's view in this regard is supported by Duncan (see note); nothing since has been published arguing against this view - which seems to be orthodoxy now - but I have nevertheless given previous views a mention (see first sentence and note). Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The part 'when Henry returned to England' is what confuses me. Where is Henry returning from? Normandy? Scotland? What does this have to do with David being in position to claim his inheritance?
  • There is no evidence which shows that King Henry participated in the campaign in person, but it is clear that his backing was enough to force King Alexander to recognise his younger brother's claims.
If there's no evidence, why mention it at all?
  • Because it's inherently likely. The period and context is of the type where many likely things are not directly provable. Such a situation shaped the phraseology of all writings about this period. Are you nevertheless think it should be deleted? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is sufficient to note that David was supported by Henry. Speculation about whether Henry appeared in person seems OTT.
  • Years later, when David invaded England with a huge army composed almost entirely of Gaelic Scots, Ailred of Rievaulx has a Norman knight named Robert de Brus lament and complain to David about his betrayal of the Angli and Normanni, the English and Normans, whom he once relied upon. Among other things, the knight asserted:
This is too detailed for an introduction to a source. 'asserted' is a word to avoid. 'Among other things' seems redundant.
  • On this point I strongly disagree. It is this source which illuminates the events under discussion. To remove this will give the impression that this is clear-cut, when it is not. It is possible that I could get rid of this whole part and just say "later evidence shows that this inheritance was obtained through threat of force", but that would make me unhappy. :( Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could easily be cut back to 'Years later, when David invaded England, Ailred of Rievaulx has a knight named Robert de Brus complain to David about his betrayal of the English and Normans.'
  • It was in this way, through a bloodless threat of force, that David gained his first territorial foothold within the area of modern Scotland.
Wouldn't it be fairer to say he gained it through inheritance backed up by the threat of force? 'bloodless' is redundant.
  • A recently rediscovered Gaelic quatrain from this period complains that:
Where and when was it 'recently rediscovered', and by whom? Alternatively, drop the 'recently rediscovered' as unnecessary.--Nydas(Talk) 18:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I understand; before you objected to detailed introduction to another source, but you want me to make this one even more detailed? The information you're requesting is given in the footnotes. So I'm glad you gave me a second option; I went and deleted the "recently rediscovered". Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few more comments above, but I still feel as if I've only scratched the surface of this article; it is really, really long. Rather than cut the Davidian Revolution stuff (though that could be trimmed), it would be better to reduce the early life/feudal stuff i.e the exact dates he spent in England, or the details of various conflicts.

More stuff:

  • He was the youngest son of the Scottish King Máel Coluim mac Donnchada and his second wife Margaret, a princess of the House of Wessex. David spent most of his childhood in Scotland, but in 1093 political events forced him into exile in England.
Suggest shortening this to 'The youngest son of the Máel Coluim mac Donnchada and Margaret, David spent most of his childhood in Scotland, but was exiled to England in 1093.'
  • David and his brothers Alexander (Alaxandair) and Edgar (Étgar) were probably in the presence of their mother when she too died.
Specifically mentioning in this sentence that these brothers later became kings would help make the later sections more accessible. Gaelic versions of their names seems like overkill, especially when the Gaelic names don't have English versions.--Nydas(Talk) 22:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to address most of your suggestions. I've cut much of the opening two sections - early life and prince of the cumbrians - and edited away most of the Davidian revolution section. Tell me what you think. Also, per Trebor, made most of the paragraphs shorter. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is of course an excellent article, and here are a few suggested tweaks. Apologies if this duplicates some of the above - I have only skimmed it.

Lead para "There he became a hanger-on at the court of King Henry I". Call me an old fuddy-duddy if you like, but this strikes me as both informal and an unverifiable opinion. 'A peripheral figure'?

"Hanger-on" is the term Oram uses. Medieval courts consisted on inner and outer circles, and Oram means to say he was in the outer circle until his sister's marriage to Henry. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early years "the sparcity of the evidence available". Is 'sparcity' a word? - and 'available' is redundant.

Yeah; more often written "Sparsity" (the etymologically correct spelling); changed to more recognizable spelling. "Deleted available". Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David was born at an unknown point between 1083 and 1085'. 'at an unknown point' is redundant.

This was said before I think; I disagree that this is redundant. "between 1083 and 1085" doesn't necessarily imply that the exact date is unknown. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intervention "During the power struggle of 1093-97, David was in England. In 1093, he may have been about nine years old." We know how old he may have been. 'During the power struggle of 1093-97, David spent his childhood in England from about ages x - y'? I don't understand what you you're meaning to get at here. Could you elaborate? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggested improvement to the language. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Henry married David's sister, Matilda (or Edith)". I understand the difficulties but this does not read well. Suggest moving '"or Edith" to a footnote.

Deleted Edith. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The marriage made David the brother-in-law of the ruler of England." Whilst accepting that the readers of Wikipedia who post articles about tag-wrestling in pidgin English might not be able to work this out for themselves I am not sure it adds value to the article.

It emphasizes David's new political status in England. You could delete it, but then someone else might quote the remaining passage here and ask what it's significance is. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prince of the Cumbrians There is a link available for Annandale and Cunninghame. (They appear linked later.)

Linked 'em. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David in England "Moreover, Matilda's father Waltheof had been Earl of Northumberland, a defunct lordship" You just told us that. 'Moreover, his father-in-law's Earldom was a defunct lordship'?

Reread that sentence, and it looks fine. It isn't redundant because Waltheof had two lordships, one (Northumberland) and the other the "Honour of Huntingdon"; he lost Northumberland but kept his status as an earl and retained possession of the "Honour of Huntingdon" (the latter wasn't actually a territorial earldom at this stage, as other wiki articles make out). Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its the para that has repitition, not the sentence. "Henry gave David the hand of Matilda de Senlis, daughter of Waltheof, Earl of Northumberland". "Moreover, Matilda's father Waltheof had been Earl of Northumberland,"Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2nd war against Máel Coluim "Matilda de Senlis, passed away. Possibly as a result of this". At first reading I thought 'why would his wife pass away as a result of a trial?' It's the ref tag that creates the gap in the flow. Might be better as 'Possibly as a result, [40] and while'?

This is what Oram argues, and that's my way of giving this argument a mention without going into detail. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The instigator was his half-brother Máel Coluim" As there are more than one of these wretched Malcolms, this phrase had me wondering. The section header tells me anyway, but perhaps: ' The instigator was once again his half-brother Máel Coluim'.

" who now had the support of Óengus of Moray" Earlier "he had the support of the King of Moray" So, if its the same Malcolm and the same King it should be: 'who still had the support of Óengus of Moray'?

No, The previous sentences said "when Máel Coluim reappears in the sources six years later, he had the support of the King of Moray". It didn't say he had support of the King then, but implies he may have. It's the only way of guessing who was backing him at that point. But I deleted the first mention since it has caused this confusion. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"including Walter l'Espec, and were sent" 'and' is redundant.

Deleted; a leftoever from the many article trims done because of this FAC. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

" In 1134 Máel Coluim was captured" Do we know where the capture happened?

I can't remember. I need to check my books, which I won't have access to again until Wednesday. I'm away from my main residence for the "weekend" and brought with me only books relevant for doing articles on bishops (see my contribs :) ). I'll get back to you on that though, or you can ask Angus. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pacification "Kadrez" - one has a cap, the other not. What is it?

Fixed. Meaning unknown, but it's the word that appears in the relevant charter sources. I think it lists these regions as Kadrez of "Galloway" (greater Galloway, as in "Strathyrewen in Galweia"). Possibly cognate with Welsh "Cantref". Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"in compensation for the exclusion from the succession" - 'in compensation for his exclusion' ?

Then one would be wondering, "exclusion from what". No?
I meant 'in compensation for his exclusion from the succession

Dominating the north "While fighting King Stephen" Who he? Henry's successor?

Of course. This is covered by the following section - and Stephen is linked. Do you think a "(see below)" should be put next to it. Remember that this has already been introduced in the article intro at the top of the page. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1150, it looked like Caithness the whole earldom of Orkney were going to come under permanent Scottish control." Missing 'and' after Caithness?

Yeah. Added. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"David's weakness in Orkney was that the Norwegian kings were not prepared to stand back and let David reduce their power" Suggest 'him reduce their power'.

OK. altered. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King David and England Probably MOS would prefer 'Later relations with England' or similar.

Why? I did think a title more similar to the scottish section should be used, but decided to follow the daughter article. Could you explain your reasoning? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"over the most important of David's gains. It is clear that neither one of these interpretations can be taken without some weight being given to the other." which gains? Don't understand second sentence.

Means that both views have to be and are taken into account by all historians, if only with varying degress. This is the second time this section has been brought up. I'll look to altering it later this evening. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it at all possible that David had an eye on the English throne, or becoming a regent of some kind for Matilda?

Never heard that be suggested. Would be original research, though if you can find that argued anywhere Id be delighted to mention it. What has been suggested is that David secretely thought of himself as a potential king of England, or a part of it. David was, after all, since 1124 at least, the rightful King of England under contemporary succession laws. It's also curious that his Gaelic style, appearing in an obituary, is rí Alban & Saxain, king of Scotland and England. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bishopric of Durham "However, Stephen's supporters had gotten wind of the plan" Your disregard for the Queen's English is a national scandal!

Pardon me. Don't usually use her majesty's English as a standard. Of course, you mean that this is too informal for your liking. I changed it. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your dreadful user box. Thank-you for recanting.

"British Isles lost" 'British Isles was lost?

No, no; read the whole sentence - a quote from a historian - "For Oram, this event was the turning point, "the chance to radically redraw the political map of the British Isles lost forever"." The syntax of the whole sentence means that the "was" is understood. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would benefit from a comma before 'lost' even if its not in the original.

Succession and death "He had probably been suffering from some kind of illness for a long time."'some kind' is redundant.

No it is not redundant, it makes it clear that the nature of the illness itself is unknown. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"David had under a year to live, and he may have known that he was not going to live much longer."

'Live' twice in one sentence. Suggest 'survive much longer'. 

: Changed second "live" to "be alive". Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"David quickly arranged for his grandson Máel Coluim" We have met the other one(s). At first mention suggest 'Máel Coluim mac Eanric'.

Other grandsons called Máel Coluim? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


"Scotland-proper" What is this and it also appears twice in a sentence.

Government and feudalism "The widespread infeftment" Investment?

That's an archaic Scots (?) word; I didn't actually write this word; replaced it with "enfeoffment". Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David I and the economy MOS grumble and "undermine the position of the native Scottish language" I think this is misleading - perhaps disambiguating native Gaelic and Scots might be helpful?

I don't understand why it's misleading? Scots were Gaelic-speakers by definition in this era and there was no such thing as Lallans. It's also clear from the context, if the user had any unlikely doubts, what language is meant. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes 2) "Máel Coluim had at seems to have had two sons". Syntax error

Fixed. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

21) "princeps Cumbrensis". Capital 'p'?

Sure ... changed. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

114) Seems to have a relationship with (48). I think they are congruent statements, but it may be worth checking.

Cover similar topics; one in relation to Moray burghs, one to burghs in general. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will check. ATM I'm editing article and responding at the same time, so not able to go by reference number. Can easily do so when I'm finished. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refs Clancy, Thomas Owen, "Annat and the Origins of the Parish" Annat?

Yep. A place name element. Annat meant something close to, what for it ... "parish church". Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oram, Richard, "David I" Apostrophe wiki-ing is out. Ben MacDui (Talk) 12:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to point out fixes and suggest tweaks. I hope you regard my responses as satisfactory ... and continue commenting as necessary and appropriate. Will respond to my talk page message in a little bit. Best regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, most satisfactory of course. Replies on a few minor points above. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Extensive, scrupulously well referenced, nicely illustrated, covers the different views of the subject, and the prose isn't too terrible. More proof-reading would be beneficial, as would more proof-readers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support., I think that this is one of those rare article in which once to start reading it you can't stop. Excellent job. Kyriakos 09:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/David_I_of_Scotland&oldid=1086103596"