Talk:Harald Hardrada/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Old Lanky (talk · contribs) 20:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Review
I will review this article. --Old Lanky (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments
These comments follow an initial reading of the text and layout. I've also looked at the history and discussion pages.

The article was created in March 2002 but it was not until User:Thhist became involved in July 2012 that any substantial development occurred. There have been isolated examples of fly-by vandalism but there is no evidence of dispute and the article is stable in terms of overall editing. It was subject to a change of title which was concluded easily enough. The main sources used are the books by Kelly DeVries and Halvor Tjønn but several others have been used and I have no reason to doubt their authenticity. I can see no potential violation of copyright.

I still need to check linkage but I have no immediate problems with that or with the frequency of inline citations. I can't see any obvious POV but all these questions and consideration of style, grammar, scope, spelling, structure, context, etc. are for the detailed review. On the face of it, the article is looking okay so far and the next stage is to do a detailed review. I'll report back presently on that. --Old Lanky (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Update
I'm about halfway through the detailed review but I've been very busy of late so it's taking longer than I would like. Please bear with me. --Old Lanky (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Detailed review
I'd like the following points to be addressed but, once that is done, I'm confident this will pass although I would like to read it once more to be sure.

Lead

 * "As Magnus died already the next year" ==> change or remove "already"
 * Removed it. Thhist (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Harald's reign was likely one of relative peace and stability" : "likely" ==> "possibly", "probably" or "believed to have been"
 * Used probably. Thhist (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "His luck came to an end, however," : poor choice of words as luck didn't come into it; basically, his chosen course ended at Stamford Bridge
 * Changed the full sentence to "His campaign finally came to its end when he was attacked by Harold Godwinson's forces in the Battle of Stamford Bridge, in which Harald was killed and defeated." Thhist (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "is often recorded as the end of the Viking Age" ==> "is sometimes perceived to have been the end of the Viking Age"
 * Changed to "is often considered by modern historians as the end of the Viking Age". Thhist (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Early life

 * Mention that Ringerike is in Norway for clarity
 * Done. Thhist (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "rolemodel" ==> "role model"
 * Done. Thhist (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "The Icelandic sources". Shouldn't this be "The Icelandic Sagas", especially as "sagas" is mentioned in the Fairhair dynasty graphic and subsequently in the narrative?
 * I agree that it's better to say sagas directly, so there's no potential confusion. Thhist (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "forced in exile" ==> "forced into exile"
 * Done. Thhist (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Harald was nonetheless remarked to have shown considerable military talent during the battle". Fair enough but who by?
 * The source (DeVries) doesn't say by who. Thhist (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

To Kievan Rus'

 * "Yaroslav recognised a potential in Harald" : potential what?
 * Changed to "military potential". Thhist (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "in exile to Yaroslav" ==> "exiled in Yaroslav"
 * Is it possible to say that someone is exiled "in" a person? Thhist (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

In Byzantine service

 * "Harald and his crew" : is "crew" the right word here?
 * Perhaps not. Is "force" better? Thhist (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Þjóðólfr Arnórsson" : redlink to be removed or article created. Also, should an anglicised version of the forename be used in the English WP?
 * Modern Norwegian uses Tjodolv Arnorsson. I can change it to this. Thhist (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "which the sagas imply" ==> "as the sagas imply"
 * Done. Thhist (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The Pechenegs: are you sure he was involved with them both in Kievan Rus' and in the Byzantine Empire?
 * It is not known for sure if he fought them at all, but as a natural enemy of both Kievan Rus and the Byzantines in the period, it is definitely very possible (per the historians). Thhist (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "modern scholars have questioned that chronology" : need a citation for this.
 * I have made it more clear that it is DeVries who has questioned this. Thhist (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "before or after the 1036 peace treaty" need citation for whole sentence. Who considers it unlikely?
 * Also DeVries, the rest is both DeVries and Tjønn. Thhist (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "On the other hand, it is possible that Harald may have been in a party sent to escort pilgrims to Jerusalem....." : this whole paragraph comprises speculations and needs to be rewritten with definite sources for each point of view.
 * I think I have made it more clear now, but DeVries and Tjønn argue pretty much the same for this, and sources are present. Thhist (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "action in Bulgaria, were they arrived not before early 1041" ==> copyedit
 * Is "fight in Bulgaria, were they arrived in early 1041, or somewhat after." better? Thhist (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Harald was not affected by Maniakes' conflict with Michael IV" : should this be "not involved in"?
 * I don't think this needs to be changed. The main point is that he was not affected by the conflict vis-a-vis the emperor, despite having fought with Maniakes (it could be argued that he was somewhat involved). Thhist (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "the Byzantine emperor first appointed him manglabites" : citation needed
 * The ref is the same as for the next sentence, but I can add refs for both. Thhist (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "18 greater battles" ==> "eighteen great battles"?
 * Sure. Thhist (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "During the turmoil, Harald was arrested and imprisoned, but the sources disagree on the grounds" : this sentence and following ones need better citations to clarify which sources had different views. Entire paragraph lacks sources and more citations are needed.
 * This is from DeVries. Otherwise the refs sometimes include more than a single sentence, is it really necessary to repeat the same ref for every single sentence? Thhist (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Back to Kievan Rus'

 * "polutasvarf" : no citation for the explanation of this term.
 * Moved the relevant ref. Thhist (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "the famous Byzantine cross-strait iron chains" : need citation here to justify use of "famous"
 * Removed unnecessary detail. Thhist (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Elisabeth" ==> "Elisiv of Kiev" per WP article to avoid redirect
 * I agree. It was someone else who insisted on the former. Thhist (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Morkinskinna also relates that Harald had spoken with Yaroslav during his first time in Rus', in which Harald's request to marry Elisabeth for the time being was dismissed because he was not yet wealthy enough" : poor construction. Rewrite.
 * Is "According to the same source, Harald had spoken with Yaroslav during his first time in Rus', requesting to marry Elisiv, only to be rejected because he was not yet wealthy enough." better? Thhist (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Return to Scandinavia

 * "No domestic threats or insurrections are recorded to have occurred during his eleven-year reign" : citation needed.
 * I split the ref to also specify this. Thhist (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Harald may have planned to be taken as king of his father's kingdom, and thereafter claim the rest of the country" : citation needed.
 * Done; double ref. Thhist (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "and their only recorded meetings were close to end in physical clashes" ==> rewrite as "were close to end" doesn't make sense
 * Is "nearly ended" better?. Thhist (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Harald himself objected to bringing the body of Magnus back to Norway" : citation needed
 * Should be sufficiently referenced now, if I don't have to reference parts of sentences alone. Thhist (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Invasions of Denmark

 * "reestablish" ==> "re-establish"

Summary
I'll place the review on hold for now. --Old Lanky (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I'm now back after being absent from Wikipedia for a few days, and I will in a short time address the points above. Thhist (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for addressing the various points, Thhist. I'm passing this as a GA now. Well done. --Old Lanky (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks for your patience. Thhist (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

There's a problem with the footnotes. Most of them refer to messrs. Tjønn and DeVries - especially the more colourful anecdotes - but their works are not listed, it's all ibids. I'm very much a layman, but the level of detail seems rather improbable to me and there's a lot of 'reportedly' and 'according to Snorri' marring the text. It says (referring to authors Hjardar & Vike, again without the work listed) that Harald died 'during a state of berserkergang.' Please... //erik.bramsen.copenhagen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.251.41 (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand your problem with the footnotes. When the reference says "DeVries (1999) pp. 276–296", it means pages 276 to 296 in DeVries' book from 1999, which is "The Norwegian Invasion of England in 1066" which you can find under Bibliography. This is the standard way to reference to literature in Wikipedia and in academia generally (with minor variations). You are of course allowed your own personal opinion as everyone else, but the text is fully sourced and only reflects what published literature says. When it is said "according to X" or "X claims" etc., this is often done exactly to allow the reader to make up his/her own mind about the reliability of a potentially controversial claim. If you personally think Snorri is unreliable and should not be sourced, another person might think the same about something written by Saxo. It would be impossible to write articles if everyone just could remove what they personally don't agree with, and this is why neutrality and the inclusion of different views is a key policy on Wikipedia. Thhist (talk) 02:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)