Talk:Margaret, Maid of Norway/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 14:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll get to this in a day or two. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Lead:
  • "inaugurated" is more often used to designate elected officials... would "crowned" not make more sense here, especially as the link goes to the article on Scottish coronation
    • I chose "inaugurated" because this is the word used by the authors cited in the article, namely Richard Oram, G. W. S. Barrow, and Archie Duncan. Barrow recounts that one of the competitors argued that the Scottish kings had never been crowned (in the literal sense). An actual coronation ceremony developed only later, which had some significance in the deliberations that followed Margaret's death, so in this case I thought it would be best to go with the wording used by the sources.
      • that's fine... it just seemed .. odd .. to me with my background in English history. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
• Infancy:
  • "and if no legitimate son of his left legitimate children" I suspect there is something garbled here, its making no sense to me (although I know the history so I know what is meant in general terms)
    • Ah, I see. Is it clearer now?
• Lady:
  • Was Alexander still young? Or at least middle aged? I'm looking at the "unexpected death" but the fact that he had a son and daughter who were married does tend to imply some age for him.
    • Alexander was 44, which is fairly young. But the reason his death was unexpected is that it was the result of an accident rather than illness. He rode out in the middle of the night to try for a son with his new wife. Little did he know that she was already pregnant, and that he would end up breaking his neck. This is explained in the last sentence of the Infancy section (albeit it sounds less juicy there).
  • We have "Eric", "King Eric" and "Eric II". While using or not using "King" before Eric is a good idea for variety, I think we should probably stick with "Eric II" if we're going to use plain Eric at all.
    • I have replaced two instances of "Eric" with "King Eric". Plain names (with no titles or ordinals) seem to work best in the second paragraph of this section because King Edward I is mentioned so often alongside King Eric II.
  • "sent envoys to Edward I as part of their unfolding discussion" who is "their"?
    • Clearer?
  • "but the Scots could merely observe the negotiations between the two kings" why could they only observe? And I'm not sure why the first part of this sentence is tacked on to this phrase... they don't seem very connected.
    • Because Margaret was in her father's custody. Bishop Fraser, one of the Scottish guardians, tried to take part in the negotiations but had no bargaining chip. I am not sure what to do to make that clearer.
      • Perhaps point out that because they didn't have custody they had nothing to bargain with
        • Done!
  • Probably should explain why a papal bull was needed to allow the marriage of the future Edward II and Margaret - the "permitting" is somewhat of an easter egg link and I"m not sure many readers will click through to the linked article.
    • Does this work better?
• Legacy:
  • "inauguarated" again linked to coronation...
    • Coronation_of_the_British_monarch#Scottish_coronations seems to treat the inauguration as a precursor for the coronation ceremony, so both are discussed there. Do you think the link is inappropriate?
      • Oh, no. was just pointing out that it was the same issue as in the lead... which you resolved. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
• I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.

Just a few spots that need some work. Overall a nice article!

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for such a rapid review, Ealdgyth! I had to intersperse my comments with yours. I hope you can make heads or tails of it all. Surtsicna (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Mostly struck, just the one thing left... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

And that's a wrap... doing paperwork now. Great little article on an obscure but very important figure... good work! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

There's still this 'unsettled' status about whether Margaret was ever Queen of Scotland. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)