Talk:Sigtrygg Silkbeard/GA1

GA Review

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

This article is obviously pretty good, but there are a few areas that I think need to be tidied up before it can be listed as a GA:

Lead

• "His family also conducted a series of marriage alliances with Boru". Reads very strangely. How many members of Sigtrygg's family did Boru marry? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It was a double marriage alliance. Sigtrygg married Slaine while his mother married his father in law Boru. --Grimhelm (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Sigtrygg survived the battle, and his long reign spanned forty-six years". Why would we have supposed that he wouldn't have survived the battle, as we've already been told that he was King of Dublin in 1036? The second part of the sentence seems to have no connection to the beginning in any event. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Because so few of the leaders of the battle, on either side, survived. You're right that it seems extraneous, so it has been removed. --Grimhelm (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• "He also saw conflict with rival Norse kings". This is ambiguous. I presume it means that he was in conflict with these rival kings, not that he simply watched as they were in conflict? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, he came into conflict with other Norse kings. --Grimhelm (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Although Dublin underwent several reversals of fortune, on the whole trade in the city flourished". There's no context for that statement, Are we talking generally, or specifically about Dublin's fortunes during the time of Sigtrygg's reign? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Specifically during his reign. --Grimhelm (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Family

• "... and was sister of his successor". Needs either a definite or indefinite article, depending on how many sisters his successor had. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed. --Grimhelm (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• "She had previously been married first to the King of Meath ...". There's at best some redundancy here between previously" and "first". Did she have any other husbands after the King of Meath and Olaf Cuarán? If not mightn't it be clearer to say something like "ex-wife of the King of Meath"? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed. --Grimhelm (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

King of Dublin

• "The Irish annals record curiously little information about Sigtrygg ...". Why "curiously? Whose opinion is it that it's "curious"? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It is curious because the Irish annals are extraordinarily detailed for the medieval period (cf. MacManus). The opinion is that of Hudson. --Grimhelm (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

First Leinster revolt against Boru

• There is a wikilink in the first sentence to Brian Boru, yet he has already mentioned in the King of Dublin section, where he is called "Brian Ború". The first occurrence should be the one that's linked, and his name needs to be given consistently.
  • Fixed. --Grimhelm (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Brian's daughter by his first wife was married to Sigtrygg, and Brian in turn took Sigtrygg's mother, the now thrice-married Gormflaith, as his second wife." I'm left wondering how many wives Brian had at any given time. Did he now have two wives, or had his first wife died/been divorced? Sigtrygg's marriage to Brian's daughter is repeated in the first sentence of the Issue and legacy section. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • In medieval Ireland, the church never expanded outside the religious field of influence. Instead, the old Celtic system of secular marriage survived, so that divorce and remarriage were common. However, in the old Irish system, no one ever had more than one spouse at any given time (although concubinage was another widespread contemporary phenomenon). --Grimhelm (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• It seems inconsistent for this section title to use the name "Boru" when everywhere else, including in this section, he is called "Brian". Perhaps better to rename this section to "... against Brian Boru"? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed. --Grimhelm (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The years between the revolts

• "Dublin enjoyed a sustained period of peace while Sigtrygg's men served in the armies of Brian". Did Brian have more than one army? Wouldn't "Brian's army" be more accurate if not? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Brian was one of the few High Kings in Irish history to achieve a real hegemony over the entire island. It would be understandable that he had several armies, both according to the various tribes and chiefs who owed him their allegiance, and to the different campaigns for which he raised armies specifically. (Armies were raised from freemen for specific campagins in early medieval Ireland; it was not until the late medieval period that each territory supported its own standing army and professional military class.) In any case, the exact quote from Hudson (p 95) is "Dublin enjoyed a dozen years of peace while Sitric's troops were in the armies of the high king Brian." --Grimhelm (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Sigtrygg never forgot the insult of the Ulaid ...". What insult? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The fact that the Ulaid refused him refuge and aid, forcing him to flee Ireland entirely and later submit to Brian. --Grimhelm (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Sigtrygg considered awarding the poet with ships and gold ...". Shouldn't this be "rewarding"? You don't award with anything. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, you are of course correct. --Grimhelm (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Reign after Clontarf

• "Immediately after Clontarf, the Sigtrygg's fortunes seemed to decline ...". Why the Sigtrygg's? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • That's a typo. Fixed. --Grimhelm (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Sigtrygg won a victory on the Boyne estuary of a type previously unseen by his dynasty for two decades ...". What was this "type"? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It was his dynasty's most significant victory since Clontarf. --Grimhelm (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've put this article on hold, to allow time for these issues to be addressed. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I have addressed all the main issues you brought up in your review. If there is anything else to discuss please don't hesitate to do so. Thanks for reviewing and especially for copyediting and catching out typos. --Grimhelm (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for dealing so promptly with the issues I raised, nice work. I feel confident that this article now meets the GA criteria, and so I'm closing this review and listing the article as a GA. I think though if you have any aspirations to take this to FAC the prose will need some serious work by a good copyeditor to improve its flow, and the eyes of a few more medieval history specialists wouldn't come amiss either. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.