Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Áedán mac Gabráin

Áedán mac Gabráin edit

This is a self-nomination. The article has not previously been nominated. Since the GA-review earlier in the year the changes have been to add references, correct spelling and grammar errors, and add detail. The article has been read by volunteers who didn't find (or were too kind to remark upon) any major blunders. It may be that more context would be useful for general readers, and this can easily be added if desired. The automated peer review suggestions have been addressed to the best of my ability. I have a rather miserable stub written in a sandbox which could remove the one remaining red link, if that needs to be resolved. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, very good article. Kirill Lokshin 17:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great research for what seems like an obscure topic.--Eupator 22:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Kyriakos 22:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why does the succession box give the date of the end of his reign as "604x608"? —Cuiviénen 03:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 604x608 is between 604 and 608, x608 would be before 608, 604x would be after 604. But since that's not clear I'll change it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for clarifying. I can support this well-written and well-referenced article, then. —Cuivi é nen 18:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive article. Well written, well referenced. Excellent overall.+ Ceoil 13:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should pronunciation be added to the article? See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation). Also, has no one ever made an illustration of him? Such a thing would be great to include if one exists. --W.marsh 16:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Being clueless myself, I've asked Angr for help with an IPA version of the subject's name;if he's busy I'll try to find someone else. There's a 17th century portrait, by a Dutch artist whose name escapes me just now, in Holyrood Palace: and here it is. It isn't very atmospheric at all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The pronounciation has been added by Angr: Old Irish pronunciation [ˈaiðaːn mak ˈgavraːnʲ]. I've left the image for now. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Semperf 19:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support Interesting article. Hmains 21:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- I don't think the disambiguation is necessary. Would people end here by following a link entitled simply "Aidan"? If a note is there, I believe it should use the template format too.
- there are come copyediting issues that need smoothing out, such as a capitals to Battle of Dagsastan, or King of Dál Riata, and poor wordings –This tells how Áedán[...] (!)–, before it can truly satisfy criterion 1a:
- there are odd choices of links and explanations:
  - There is no link to Dál Riata anywhere! Maybe reformat "king of Dál Riata" to "king of Dál Riata" in the lead?
  - Áedán was exchanged at birth for one of the twin daughters of Gabrán
    - Gabrán mac Domangairt should be linked here, not all the way down under "Reign"
  - These divisions were the Cenél nGabráin, who took their name from Áedán's father, who ruled over Kintyre, Cowal and Bute
    - Cenél nGabráin redirects unexpectedly to Gabrán mac Domangairt. It would be a bit more efficient to mention that these a kinship group (If I understand correctly) directly here.
    - The sentence seems to contradict an above mention that Áedán is a son of Echu mac Muiredaig...
  - A lost Irish tale, Echtra Áedáin mac Gabráin (The Adventures of Áedán son of Gabrán) appears in a list of works, but its contents are unknown.
    - Is the list from MacQuarrie himself, or cited by him?

and so on. Circeus 22:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I have changed the hatnote (Aedan redirects here ...) to {{redirectpeople}}. For the story of Áedán and Brandub, I've slightly reworded it, and changed it to the present tense since it's treated here as a work of fiction. There was a link to Dál Riata in the lead image caption, but as you rightly say, that's not very helpful. Cuiviénen had already updated it as you suggested.

I've linked Gabrán mac Domangairt in the lead, otherwise the son of Echu mac Muiredaig version is likely to be confusing, just as you say. Since there's no specific article on early Irish kin groups, I've added a link to apical ancestor before naming the kin groups. It may be that eponym(ous) would be better. The contradiction should be resolved by the sentence added to the lead section.

The MacQuarrie citation is for the sentence as it stands. MacQuarrie doesn't (as I recall) say where the list is found. Fortunately, http://volny.cz/enelen/sc.htm supplies the missing information which I have added to the footnote. If there is anything else that you see, however minor, please let me know! Thanks very much, Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After rereading, I'll throw in some extra prose concerns:

Title of works should all be in italics: "The Senchus fer n-Alban records [...]" isn't (MoS:T)
- It also lacks a free translation (which should be stated, unless they are official translations; if they aren't published English titles, then quotes are needed)
"Áedán is a son of Echu mac Muiredaig of the Uí Cheinnselaig of Leinster". That's three combined "of"! Rewording would help.
"the unidentified Delgu or Teloch" Are these place names? "unidentified city/hill/plain", "an uncertain location named" are allfar better options.
A comma is missing before "which they had captured in Báetán's time" (it's a side comment to the main prose)
Maybe a few "in about" could be replaced with (and the first instance linked) circa? "Around" is also an option. "in about" is... unwieldy

Circeus 17:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the comments. I've made a first pass at incorporating them, although I haven't added any translations as yet. I'll need to check my references for those. Thanks again, Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for the moment. This is certainly a very impressive piece of work, insofar as I can tell knowing as I do little or nothing about this historical period. A couple of issues seem not quite clear as currently phrased, though:

1. the first sentence states that Áedán "was king of Dál Riata, ruler of modern Argyll, Scotland, and County Antrim, Ireland, from about 574 onwards". I take it you don't mean that he was the ruler of modern Argyll! But are these two modern regions meant as an explanation of the extent of Dál Riata or are they an area that he ruled directly while being one of several kings in Dál Riata? This should be rephrased.
2. The article states that "Áedán was one among several kings in Dál Riata and many in northern Britain and Ireland. Dál Riata was later divided into three sub-kingdoms, although these divisions may post-date Áedán". There doesn't seem to be any information about who the other kings were, and the second sentence is confusing. Was Áedán only king of the area controlled by Cenel nGabráin? This seems to be the implication, but it isn't spelled out. Later on we read that "Báetán is said to have forced the king of Dál Riata to pay homage to him at Rosnaree"; again, is this known to be a reference to Áedán (and if so, the choice of language - "the king of Dál Riata" seems to imply that he was the only king of Dál Riata), or is it unclear in the sources?

I am sorry for all these quibbles, and I am well aware of how difficult it must be to write a comprehensive article on topics such as this that is accessible to the general reader. As I said, it's an excellent piece of work. Palmiro | Talk 14:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I've tweaked the intro (getting king of Dál Riata and Dál Riata in the lead) to explain where it was. The sub-divisions bit has been redone somewhat; I hope it is clearer. I've modified the section on Áedán, Áed, and, Báetán, so that it should be less cryptic. Please let me know if these improvements aren't, or if there's anything else that seems like it needs work. Thanks for the comments! Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that addresses all my issues. Palmiro | Talk 18:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]