Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kylfings

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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:08, 4 March 2009 [1].

Kylfings

[edit]
Nominator(s): Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib)

Self-nom as creator of this article (but many others have made significant contributions, particularly User:Berig). Recent GA and peer-reviewed article, providing extensive information about a relatively obscure topic. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Sources that are in languages other than English need to have that language noted in the reference.
Formatted with standard tags. –Skadinaujo T•C 23:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Kolpon ref, you need to format the bare url in the reference.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right now it reads "*"Kölpön." A Pallas Nagy Lexikona. http://mek.oszk.hu (1998)." that "http://mek.oszk.hu" needs to not be the bare web address and needs to be formatted with a link title like the previous link in the ref. We need to know who the publisher of the site is, not just a link to the site. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, for now. My initial stance has changed from neutral to opposing due to a number of issues I have encountered in the article after a closer read. I have the feeling that if I put forward my concerns, the page will look more like a peer review than a FAC. I have objections to the general structuring and organization of the article etc. I will elaborate my views on request, please respond to this comment. –Skadinaujo T•C 13:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC) *Neutral. The article is well-written and will have my support when the following remarks/questions are addressed/answered. Hopefully this will not be any major inconvenience. –Skadinaujo T•C 23:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following remarks are made by Skadinaujo (talk · contribs):

1. What kind of citation style is used here?

  • This is a standard MLA citation style.

2. Many (most?) ref tags lack a name of some sort, which could be provided, as it is useful to simply hover over a tag to see what it cites.

  • Someone with more familiarity in tag coding will have to do this. At any rate, I don't think this should hold up FA status. Many FA articles do not have this kind of coding.
That's alright, simply a suggestion. I'll leave it in case someone wants to fix it. –Skadinaujo T•C 19:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

3. "The Kylfings were a people of uncertain origin who lived in Scandinavia during the Viking Age, and could be found in areas of Lapland, Russia, and the Byzantine Empire frequented by Scandinavian traders, raiders and mercenaries." (emphasis added) – Unclear; should there be a comma between "Byzantine Empire" and "frequented", giving the meaning that the Byzantine Empire was frequented by these traders? If this frequentation includes Russia too, I suggest splitting the sentence in two, as they lived in Scandinavia, while they travelled to the east, as far as I can understand.

  • Done.

4. "Scholars differ on whether the Kylfings were of Finnic or Norse origin, whether they originated in Denmark, Sweden or the Eastern Baltic, and whether the name denotes a particular tribal, socio-political, or economic grouping." – Unclear; what is the difference between being "Finnic or Norse origin" and "originat[ing] in Denmark, Sweden or the Eastern Baltic"?

  • Grammatically I believe the meaning of this sentence is quite clear. However, I will attempt to clarify further.
Sorry, but I still do not follow the reasoning. It might be your over-familiarity with the subject, my under-familiarity, a language barrier, or all of them, but nonetheless it still needs improval. Is it ethnic origin being discussed, the origin of this social group? What is being summarized? –Skadinaujo T•C 19:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Please see the revised text. The sentence you identify as problematic is now three separate, independently-cited sentences. One addresses ethnic origin, one geographic origin. I have further clarified in the intro. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Much clearer now, thanks. Could perhaps be tweaked a bit more for sentence flow, but what's important for me is that it's understandable. –Skadinaujo T•C 21:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

5. "In Old Norse, kylfa can mean a club or cudgel. However, it can also mean a smaller stick, such as a talley-stick or wooden token used by merchants, and it can also mean the 'highest and narrowest part' of a ship's stem. Another, still less likely Norse derivation is 'stammer' (kylfa)." – The meanings of some of the words are given by Cleasby, but who proposed the etymologies? I understand that Holm is the main source, but that should be clearly shown by putting references after each claim. This applies for the rest of the etymology section. In the "Scandinavians" section right below, it is stated that "Barði Guðmundsson translated 'Kylfing' to mean 'club-wielders'", I can't see why this shouldn't be mentioned first in the etymology section. Also, the idenfication with the Scylfings is also a linguistic matter that should be elaborated in the etymology section.

  • I'm not sure I understand your criticisms of the etymologies section. The opening sentences you cite actually contain three diffent sources. Appropriate citations appear to have been added for each of the proposed etymologies.
I just want to know who said what, and when. Who proposed these etymologies? Might need some restructuring as well, something like a sentence to summarize the trends of the theories and the great range of different suggestions. –Skadinaujo T•C 19:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
See revised text. It should address the bulk of your concerns. The identification with the Scylfings is not elaborated on by Gudmundsson with any detailed linguistic analysis, so it properly belongs where it is rather than with etymologies. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I still have a few things to point out here. Cleasby and Vigfússon's dictionary is a standard dictionary, not an etymological one. Citing Cleasby on this is not appropriate, as a translation does not equal a valid etymology. On what grounds are the Scylfings identified with the Kylfings? If it's on linguistic grounds, the theory behind this should be presented in the etymology section. –Skadinaujo T•C 21:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, Cleasby is now cited only for definition, not derivation. Scylfing connection has been removed because I could find no proper analysis of it. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

6. "Kylfingr corresponds to the Russian Kolbjag" – is Kolbjag a personal name, a name denoting a group, or something else? What exactly does "corresponds" mean in this context; that it is cognate to the word Kolbjag or that it is used to translate it?

  • Fixed.
Please see remaining comments. –Skadinaujo T•C 20:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I changed it to cognate with wikilink, as I suppose this is the meaning. –Skadinaujo T•C 21:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
See the revised text. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

7. "In Byzantine Greek, they were named koulpingoi and they were among the Emperor's mercenaries like the famed Varangian Guard." – Who were named koulpingoi, and which Emperor are we talking about?

  • Fixed.

8. "A strikingly different derivation was proposed" (emphasis added) – I suppose etymology is meant here, and not derivation.

  • "Derivation" is synonymous with "etymology."
I wasn't quite clear of the semantic difference (or lack of it). Now I am, thanks. –Skadinaujo T•C 19:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Derivation just means the origin of the word or where it is derived from. I just didn't want to keep using "etymology" over and over again. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

9. "(...) the Votic self-designation Vatjalaiset and Vatja (or Vadjalaiset and Vadja)." – What sort of self-designation is this?

  • Fixed.

10. "(...) who argued that both "Varangian" and "Kylfing" derived from the Turkic languages." – Varangian and Kylfingr should be italicized. Same applies for the next sentence. "Turkic languages" makes the claim a bit ambiguous, please clarify.

  • I disagree that these words should be italicized. They are english or anglicized words that are being discussed, just as viking in the following part of the sentence is not italicized.
See WP:ITALICS and Use–mention distinction for use of italics. When the word itself, and not the concept, is discussed, italics should be used. –Skadinaujo T•C 19:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, I have changed this. Thanks for the link to the MOS, it is helpful. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

11. "(...) while Kylfing was a Norse transliteration of the Slavic kolbiagi, itself deriving from the Turkic phrase köl-beg or 'sea-king'; under this interpretation the word Kylfing would be more or less synonymous with 'Viking'." – What is meant by "transliteration"? Should it be "translation" instead? "or" should be left out if köl-beg means "sea-king". "Slavic" should be wikilinked, as it is the first mention. Kylfing should be italicized in "the word Kylfing".

Please see remaining comments. Cf. #10 on italicization. –Skadinaujo T•C 20:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, made the rest of the changes. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Looks good. –Skadinaujo T•C 21:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note in the future that FACs and peer reviews should not be running at the same time. I have closed the PR. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. While this article is well written and educational, it lacks an "attestations" section (which I personally feel should be required on all of these articles). I would like to be able to read a bare bones and complete-as-possible rundown of where the name is attested exactly, as chronologically as possible. My experience has often been that sources may contradict, scholars may not be aware of certain sources, and for the sake of comprehensibility it's important to break out "just the facts" before delving into theories surrounding a subject. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the long delay in responding to this; I didn't realize your response had been posted. Anyway, for an example of a long article that goes in depth I've written, see valkyrie. For a small one, check out Hlín. Basically, I am asking for you to make a section, preferably (if roughly) chronologically, that details where they're first mentioned, (briefly) under what circumstances and so forth while keeping the surrounding 'theories' away from these attestations. Personally, I find the primary sources to be utmost important. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that format would work here. It would be misleading. As this article notes, the Kylfings are known by different names in different sources. I cannot say "the Kylfings are attested to in X, Y, and Z" without noting that in Y they are known by the Russian designation Kolbiagi and in Z by the Greek Koupiggon. In essence, the identity section is about attestations in various sources, but contains necessary explanatory material. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be quite possible, very neutral and educational. It would, for example, be possible to sort these attestations by the cultures that recorded information about them. Of course, this is always time consuming to do, since it requires a lot of hunting. Yet for a truly solid and enduring article I believe primary sources should take front stage and that the theories and explanations should be secondary. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While the addition of the small list is an improvement, I am afraid I can't get behind an article that isn't more focused on primary sources for FAC. I won't oppose it but I can't lend my support either. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My concerns have been addressed. Karanacs (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Oppose for now by karanacs. I found a lot of small errors and have some concerns about some of the organization. I felt like the article assumed I knew more about Scandinavian history than I actually do, and it was confusing to me.[reply]

  • Need a citation (with page number), for this Holm discussed the term kylfa in connection with the word hjúkolfr which means "meeting" or "guild"; according to Holm, the second element kolfr could refer to a symbolic arrow traditionally used as a device to summon people for a meeting.
  • Inconsistent capitalization and italicization of Egil's Saga. Please pick one form
  • QUotations need to have a cite at the end of the sentence, even if that means that citations are duplicated in subsequent sentences.
  • In this sentence, I'm unsure who/what we are comparng Gustav Storm and Elias Wessen to: Some scholars (such as Max Vasmer in 1931) have considered the Kylfings of Egil's saga to be a "conquering Germanic people", or the Swedish king's tax collectors, e.g. Gustav Storm in 1889 and Elias Wessén in 1936 - the sentence parses to make those two be examples of tax collectors, but that makes no sense
  • The sentence on runestones in Sweden containing that personal name is misplaced
  • There is a lot of name-throwing of historians. I understand that this is somewhat necessary, but I wonder if more of it should be moved to footnotes or just citations, especially when we are discussing multiple historians with the same viewpoint and all or most of them have no wikilink.
  • Do we know when the last mention was made of this group of people?
  • It might be helpful to have some kind of table or timeline that shows when members of the group were believed to be where. There are also very few dates used in the article itself; I think we are supposed to interpolate those from the events listed. I know little about Scandinavian history, however, so I'd have to click just about every wikilink to figure out timings.

Karanacs (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your concerns should now be addressed. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a timeline section which I think is a reasonable compromise addressing Karanacs' and Bloodofox's remaining concerns. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is an excellent addition! Perhaps it would be better formatted as a table, with a one-sentence introduction before it? Karanacs (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would look good, but I'm not skilled enough in wikicoding to set that up properly. I certainly would support it.
Can you clarify whether you are now supporting the FAC? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Agree very much so with Karanacs. Prose needs work:
  • Scholars differ on whether the Kylfings were ethnically Finnic or Norse. - opinion differs

Barði Guðmundsson identified the Kylfings as an East Scandinavian, possibly Swedish, tribe - east-->eastern

  • Who are Holm, and Pritsak?
  • chrysobulls - What are these?
  • There is a lot of jargon in the article that should be either properly linked to or explained in parentheses or appositives. Ceranthor 02:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • What are the refs for these cites, please: Bugge 309, Chadwick 186, Laiou 91 (missing second author; in fact many cites seem to be missing them),Rundata.
  • many of these could be named cites, e.g. three instances of "A Pallas Nagy Lexikona"; four of "Chadwick 186"
  • Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 11:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and Question. About refs: MLA says that if you have more than one author, you list the principal author only in the cites? Really? I work in social sciences & have never used MLA, but that's not what is says at Cornell's website (see "Multiple authors of a work") ... as for the missing refs, I don't care what MLA says: if you mention someone in your cites, I want to see their works in the references. No one ever said that you can't do more than the minimum required. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 01:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref tools -- Ref errors found using WP:REFTOOLS.

  • Guðmundsson passim. Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Ravndal 75. Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Arbman 90. Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Egil's Saga § 10 (Scudder 20). Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Pulsiano 557. Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Holm 95 Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Laiou 91. Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • A Pallas Nagy Lexikona. Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Székely 11. Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Chadwick 186. Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Struminski 234. Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • holm95 Multiple references are given the same name
Instead of listing the same thing over and over, use a ref name instead. In addition, some refs have the same ref name even though they are different citations.--TRUCO 22:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review as follows:

Hopefully, should be pretty quick to clear up. Jappalang (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No more issues with the images as of this revision. Jappalang (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's still another problem with the citations. In the "Notes" section, we find (for example), Chadwick 186. Yet in the alphabetical "References" section, we find no Chadwick. We do later find a Kershaw Chadwick, Nora. Is that the source used? If so, the Note should be to Kershaw Chadwick. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Kylfings&oldid=1138465417"