Talk:Kenneth MacAlpin/GA1

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

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 12:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Happy to work with you on a review of this article.
 * Nice, thanks for taking this. Looking for future updates on this review. --► Sincerely:  Sola virum  16:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Review
Looking at the article in general, it seems to have a large number of issues that need to be addressed. I have identified some below, but the list is far from complete, as I stopped when I started to realise how much work the article needs. I'm failing the article, but would recommend you re-nominate it for GA, after the points I raise are addressed. I would recommend you use the advice out there on Wikipedia (e.g. here) to ensure the article is as good as it needs to be, and perhaps consider listing it for a peer review for further suggestions (see WP:PR), something I know editors find very useful. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 08:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Lead section / info box

 * I would replace the links to Scotland with Scotland in the Early Middle Ages, as Kenneth's concept of what constituted Scotland doesn’t match the borders of the modern country.
 * Amend One of the chronicles to ‘One chronicle’.
 * The lead is too short. See MOS:LEAD for how to expand the article so that it “stands on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic”.
 * The infobox needs to contain at least one of his Gaelic names.
 * The image is an issue imo. Is there a reason why it is notable enough to be used here? In the end, no image at all is better than a poor one.
 * Link chronicle.

1 Origin

 * Link scribes; manuscript; High Kingship (High King of Ireland), Picts.
 * The text following the following ancestry for Kenneth: should be the ancestry, and it isn’t.
 * were Irish Gaelic in origin – as Irish Gaelic is a language, this text doesn’t make much sense to me.
 * likely exaggerated – by who?
 * Alpín died on 20 July 834 – 3 citations are needed for this sentence.
 * Move the link for kings of Scotland to where it first occurs in the paragraph.
 * There are a lot of duplicated links, none of which are imo needed (see MOS:REPEATLINK). I use thisto sort out duplicated links.

2 Life

 * Link coronation.
 * After his father's death – I would include the date this occurred.
 * As Kenneth reigned during his life, perhaps it would make more sense to retitle this section to ‘Life and reign’, and not have a separate Reign section following on.
 * island Iona – ‘island of Iona’.
 * Delete which is sometimes called the Scottish Chronicle, which is (off-topic).
 * which is part of a 14th-century manuscript known as the Poppleton manuscript doesn’t make any sense.
 * and describes the reigns of Scottish kings from Kenneth I to Kenneth II (r. 971–995). Initially, the chronicle was a list of kings; details about kings and their reigns were added to it in the 10th century. None of this is to do with Kenneth’s life, and should be removed as off-topic.

3.1 Conquest of Pictavia

 * Link Vikings.
 * Amend Kenneth "came to Pictavia", which is also referred to as Pictland—a region that was inhabited by the Picts, to something like ‘Kenneth "came to a region that was inhabited by the Picts’.
 * sixteen years is more normally put as '16 years'.
 * Annals of Ulster - it would be useful to have a date for when this was made.
 * King of Picts - Be consistent about ‘the Picts’ or just ‘Picts’ throughout the text.
 * the situation in Dál Riada deteriorated – what situation, the weather?
 * and was filled with uneasy and narrow areas – makes no sense to me at all.
 * Briton Kingdom of Strathclyde - Remove the ‘sea of blue’, e.g. by writing ‘Briton kingdom of Strathclyde’..
 * to attack the Pictavia – ‘to attack the Picts’?
 * which according to the Annals of Ulster occurred is unnecessary text that can be removed.

(No comments provided for sections 3.2–7)

8 Sources

 * The list should be in alphabetical order.
 * The formatting for the titles in this section needs to be consistent, e.g. the ISBN numbers need to be in the same style.

9 Further reading

 * The list is long. See MOS:FURTHER for more information about this section.
 * I would remove Ó Corráin, Forsyth, Duncan, Broun (1998) and Alcock, which appear to general texts on an aspect of Scottish history.
 * I would consider including specific page ranges for these publications you feel should be kept.
 * To improve this section, check the formatting for the titles in this section, which should be consistent, e.g. the ISBN numbers need to be in the same style.
 * I would add ‘ref=none’ for each source, which removes the Harvard error some readers get. I’ve done Herbert for you.

10 External links

 * The date information does not match the information in the lead section or the infobox.
 * O’Brien should imo be in the Further Reading section.
 * The poem – I would explain why it is included here.
 * Annals of Tigernach. Annals of the Four Masters, Duan Albanach, Annals of Ulster, Chronicle of the Kings of Alba – should be removed (they belong with the articles of those names).
 * The article List of kings of Dál Riata contradicts the information in this article (including a form of his name not mentioned by you). It may be of interest here, as imo this sort of contradiction throws doubt over both articles’ integrity. Similarly the article List of Scottish monarchs doesn’t have the same regnal dates as yours, and gives a different modern name. I would amend any such incorrect information in related articles.

Amitchell125 (talk) 08:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you for reviewing this. That part about the High Kingship wasn't added by me (maybe some IP addition, idk), visible by the fact that the whole sentence looks out of place. But I'll look into these issues and peer review the article before nominating it again. --► Sincerely:  Sola virum  17:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)