Wikipedia:Peer review/Óengus I of the Picts/archive1

Óengus I of the Picts

I would appreciate a peer review of this article before submitting it for FA review. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 21:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to mention an article published by Woolf. There is a revision of the Nechtan v Óengus passage. Essentially, the exactatores of Nechtan are not his tax-collectors, but the "oppressors" of Nechtan. That changes the whole interpretation of these events. The article was published this year. I shall email you a pdf version. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much. Incoporated, now needs to be added to Nechtan, which I'll do today. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know how hard it is to bring together so many sources pertaining to such obscure figures and commend everyone involved in the work. I am ready to vote for the article when it is nominated and my advices are very few. Could we find more images? If the name of his capital is known, we could show our readers how it looks today. I would like to see the style of ISBNs unified. Some external links should be merged to primary sources: Bede is a source, whether he is online or not. I'm not sure whether Gaelicisation may be called an "artifact" but perhaps my poor command of the language is to blame. The word "greatest" in the last sentence is inherently POV (even if sourced) and should be replaced with a more specific term. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- ISBNs formatted and Bede added to the refs. I'll add a map showing roughly where things were. The picture at Escomb Church shows the sort of thing Nechtan and Óengus were having built in eastern Scotland. I don't think there was anything resembling a capital at this time; important forts and religious sites, but no towns or cities. Other points have been fixed, I hope: no more "great" and no more "artifact". Thanks ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very interesting article, but I find it quite confusing. I think you might need to give more background into the whole political situation in the British Isles at the time as well as Picts in general.
- Maps would also really help. Alot of the article depends on understanding the geography of Northern British Isles right now.
- Also are there any clan symbols that you could use as images?
- In the section on St. Andrews you mention David be choosen as he was a usurper, which implies Óengus was a usurper as well. But who did he usurp?
- At the end you say his son is the first Pictish king's son to become King. Why was this odd, were they matrilineal?--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 14:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll certainly add a map, and I can expand the background. Sorry to say that there aren't any symbols.

Who did he usurp ? Everyone else who thought that they should be king, I suppose. The Talorgan son of Drostan who was drowned in 739 [if he was the same person who is called Nechtan's brother in 713] perhaps. Alex Woolf doesn't actually say who he has in mind, but in Ireland anyone whose great-grandfather had been king was considered a candidate. In Northumbria in the 8th century the succession was disputed among various families who claim descent from Ida of Bernicia, who died in the 6th century, none of which had provided a king until the 8th century. There are many apparently Pictish-related people who are named in the annals in the early part of the 8th century of whom nothing is known: Fergussan son of Maelchon; "the son of Artabláir"; Finguine and Gartnait, sons of Deleroith; Congal son of Dargart; Cináed son of Der-Ilei; "the son of Mathgernan"; Simul son of Drest; Talorgan map Han. Given that the people who appear in the Irish entries are kings and princes, bishops and abbots [but these are usually distinguishable from other people], and sometimes poets and historians, we can assume that most of these people are Pictish kings or their relatives. It's plausible that anyone notable enough to appear in the annals was a king or would have claim to be one.

Pictish matriliny used to be a popular idea, not any more. Bede mentions it, but the current belief is that he does so because Bridei and Nechtan, the sons of Der-Ilei and Dargart, claimed the kingship through their mother. No genealogies of Pictish royalty survive, and the annals almost always give a name and patronym only, so identifying the grandsons of kings is very difficult. It is only the existence of Irish and Welsh genealogies which allows historians to make sense of lists of kings which would otherwise seem to include many unrelated kings.

Thanks for the comments ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map added. Hopefully it helps with background. Thanks again for all comments ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]