Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:33, 19 December 2009.

Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick

 * Nominator(s): Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Malleus and I have given this thing the copy-edit going over quite a few times now. It has been reviewed quite thoroughly by User:Hamiltonstone. Owing to to the topic's obscurity, it was a bit difficult to illustrate, so thanks especially to User:Notuncurious, who has made some very helpful images and helped alleviate that problem! The article's definitely there or thereabouts in terms of content and referencing, and already was at the last nom when it got sidetracked with RM matters ... Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * technical checks No dabs, no deadlinks, could subscription only links be indicated in ref? Images have alt text  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  16:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll try to find a way of indicating subscription. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 11:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Fifelfoo (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2c:
 * Citations are unusual, can you explain what "Innes (ed.), Registrum Episcopatus Glasguensis, vol. i, no. 139, pp. 117–18 Shead and Cunningham, "Glasgow"" is meant to mean? Do you actually mean Shead and Cunningham, "Glasgow" in Registrum... Innes (ed.), ... ?
 * Similarly it is usual to give the author and title of the chapter cited, "can be found in Barrow (ed.), Acts of William I, pp. 68–94"
 * Generally your citation of multiple works on a single line is inconsistent. Check your semi-colons.
 * Images:
 * The third map lacks a caption and is visually crowded. 21:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1c:
 * With such extensive primary sourcing I would like you to convince me that this isn't Original Research. I am highly concerned that a number of points are referenced against primary sources only.  Which standard history did you use for WEIGHTING the narrative? Fifelfoo (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Fifelfoo.


 * Citations are unusual, can you explain what "Innes (ed.), Registrum Episcopatus Glasguensis, vol. i, no. 139, pp. 117–18 Shead and Cunningham, "Glasgow"" is meant to mean? Do you actually mean Shead and Cunningham, "Glasgow" in Registrum... Innes (ed.), ... ?

That's one note with two references. There should have been a semicolon there ... inserted one.


 * Similarly it is usual to give the author and title of the chapter cited, "can be found in Barrow (ed.), Acts of William I, pp. 68–94"

I'm not certain I understand the query ... but taking a guess, you think this work is an edited collection of articles? If so, this work is an edited book of charters, rather than an essay collection. The section referenced, pp. 68–94, is the 3rd chapter of the intro, entitled "Analysis of the Acts of William I".


 * Generally your citation of multiple works on a single line is inconsistent. Check your semi-colons.

I'll double check for missing semi-colons.


 *    The third map lacks a caption and is visually crowded. 21:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC) 

Added. You mean the image has too much info in it, or there are too many images in its area of the article?


 * With such extensive primary sourcing I would like you to convince me that this isn't Original Research. I am highly concerned that a number of points are referenced against primary sources only. Which standard history did you use for WEIGHTING the narrative?

There should be no original research in the article. References to primary sources included in the wikipedia article should also be in the secondary sources referenced with or next to the primary source refs. Also, many of the references that look to be for primary sources can also be taken to refer to the editorial commentary. In all instances, primary source referencing should be entirely for the convenience of the reader (allowing the more advanced reader to verify the assertions of the wikipedia article AND the secondary source).

Without wanting to misunderstand what you mean, there shouldn't be much of a meaningful narrative for the whole article. There are narratives in sections, and this will be derived from the secondary sources referenced. For instance, the narrative (and its weighting) in the #The_Anglo-French_world section is based [largely] on Barrow Anglo-Norman Era. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 10:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. File:Donnchadh of Carrick and his descendants.jpg is completely unreadable and is a poor quality image anyway: please remove it, or replace it with a textual diagram. For more, please see Avoid entering textual information as images. I noticed this because I was reviewing the alt text, which is all good except for this image: but since this image should be removed there's little point to improving its alt text. Eubulides (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it a case that you can't read it, even when you click on it, or that it's just ugly? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My objection is based on readability, not beauty. Eubulides (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't read that image? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 09:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I can't read that image (shown at right, using the same size as in the article). I can (barely) make out the header and the word "DONNCHADH", but I can't read anything else, so the image is essentially useless in the article. It's a low-quality image anyway, so I don't suggest making it larger, or anything like that. Just turn it into text. Eubulides (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll have to forgive me ... when I made it I didn't have any intention that it would be fully visible in the article. You click on it to make it visible. There's too much info for it to be visible otherwise, surely?  A single click seems not too much to ask, but I don't know community sentiment on the matter. I hope I'm understanding right? It can be removed, sure, but there's important info there.  It can be in the article too, sure, but usually in textbooks such info is in such illustrations. If it's purely a matter of ugliness then I apologize,. I'm no master at such things. Usually even nominating an FA leads to someone more pro at such things redesigning them. I suppose I could actively recruit someone. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If the image is not meant to be useful in the article, then I suggest simply linking to the image from text in the article, e.g., "Family tree of descendants of Donnchadh". Or (better yet), replace the image with an invocation of family tree or a similar template.
 * There's a similar problem with File:Family of Donnchadh of Carrick.jpg.
 * Eubulides (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If this is going to be a sticking point, then I'll volunteer to produce SVG versions of both family trees. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed the images, Eubulides (and, yeah, I was kinda curious why you only mentioned one of these). :) @ Malleus, don't worry, not that fussed. It's just that I honestly don't see what is gained by depriving readers of such a reference ... was trying to get at why they need to be disappeared (I really still don't understand, but I'll go with it). I guess if I wanna restore them I'll look into the tl| thing. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 21:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll probably do the SVG versions anyway, as, like you, I think the images add useful information, and it would be a shame to lose them on an FAC technicality. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * SVG is an excellent idea; thanks for volunteering. The info is definitely worth presenting; it's just that a featured article must present info well. Please see File:Coenwulf family tree.svg and its use in Coenwulf of Mercia  for an example. Eubulides (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Those are gifs pasted into an SVG file, but they're still gifs; Inkscape can't convert gifs to SVG. Try rescaling those images if you don't believe me. Those are not good examples. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Compare them to File:DescentChildrenOswiu.svg in the Wilfrid article, for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. File:DescentChildrenOswiu.svg is a better example. Its text is small but is still readable in the article. (A quibble: I would have made the text somewhat larger; partly it depends on whether the image is intended to be displayed at smaller or at larger sizes.) Eubulides (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

 Leaning support - I read this before and on a read through now, found some small quibbles (and at least one place to tweak Deacon's nose).
 * ONce these quibbles are dealt with, I'll be happy to support. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the feedback. Tell me if there's anything more that you see. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 07:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Moved all struck comments to talk. See here All done! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Image review (Support on images as of 12:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC))
 * I don't really understand what the source is for File:Crossraguel abbey intact.jpg. Maybe I'm being thick-headed, but could you please try to clarify it some? Thanks.
 * I believe it's from this edition of the work which would be Public Domain. Probably the lack of italics on the file's page threw you. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Carrick.13th.to.14th.century.jpg needs an image of the underlying source for the map.
 * NW ( Talk ) 02:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't get the query. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This edit was what I was looking for. Cheers, NW ( Talk ) 12:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments on refs
 * Holy Cow! You don't make it easy on me, do you!? :-)
 * I've been wading through them and so far seem to have found only two missing: Stringer, "Acts of Lordship"; Barrow, Robert I.
 * I have a strong suspicion that some are in the refs but not the notes (e.g., Stringer "Periphery and Core". I have always considered this a forgivable sin... &bull; Ling.Nut 10:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this ...
 *  I've been wading through them and so far seem to have found only two missing: Stringer, "Acts of Lordship"; Barrow, Robert I.
 * Cheers. "Barrow, Robert I" was a mistake for "Barrow, Robert Bruce"; I've now corrected this. I've also added a cite to Stringer, "Acts of Lordship", though I'd originally meant to cite Stringer "Acts" more. :/
 * I have a strong suspicion that some are in the refs but not the notes (e.g., Stringer "Periphery and Core". I have always considered this a forgivable sin...
 * Thanks again. Added this now. Thanks for the eyes. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 06:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy to support along with a few impertinent comments:
 * I understand why this is emphasised but the "sources" section seemed to me to over-egg the pudding slightly. It's a lot to wade thru' before we get to the main course, if I may mangle my menu.
 * Scotland South of The Forth map legend is misleading. Unless you open it up it appears to contradict the text because the provinces referred to are not obviously visible. Suggest "Linguistic regions and provinces..."
 * My associates and I are regional bumpkins who are probably richt Doon the Toon when it comes to modern references to these matters, but I have never heard of "Galwegians or Gallovidians". When discussing these fine people over a skalk we call them "Gall-Gaels" - but perhaps we are not speaking "modern English".
 * "culturally Scandinavian"? I'm curious to know more about the details (although I'm not suggesting they are needed in the article).
 * I think I have grumbled before about this peculiar square brackets business e.g. [Oram]. No doubt MOS has some justification or other but it looks odd to me.
 * Why is the picture of Threave Castle not in the section in which it is mentioned?
 * Is "Historian Richard Oram" a title of some kind? Having mentioned it once can we not just call him "Oram"? Likewise Woolf.
 * James A Morris - missing a period or apostrophe after "A"?
 * At the end of the Ruler of Carrick we discuss the "minority of Donnchadh's granddaughter", but assuming this is "the lass" we later seem to think she was his great grand-daughter. I realise it's better to have the link lower down - not sure what to suggest.
 * By showing off (Sumarliði) we may have lost the opportunity to link to Somerled. Ben   Mac  Dui  12:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ben, cheers for the comments. I'll respond individually below:
 *  I understand why this is emphasised but the "sources" section seemed to me to over-egg the pudding slightly. It's a lot to wade thru' before we get to the main course, if I may mangle my menu.
 * I suppose those with smaller stomachs can skip this course. Was this just a comment, or do you propose that some of the #Sources section be removed?
 * Nah, I just snoozed off and dreamt I was reading The Complete Guide to Early Historic Scottish Sources by Rev. I. M. Jolly. A disturbing experience, but I wouldn't want to spoil the fun for others.


 *  Scotland South of The Forth map legend is misleading. Unless you open it up it appears to contradict the text because the provinces referred to are not obviously visible. Suggest "Linguistic regions and provinces..."
 * Altered the legend.


 * My associates and I are regional bumpkins who are probably richt Doon the Toon when it comes to modern references to these matters, but I have never heard of "Galwegians or Gallovidians". When discussing these fine people over a skalk we call them "Gall-Gaels" - but perhaps we are not speaking "modern English".
 * I'd actually assumed "Galwegian" was more common.Gbooks But, in fairness to yourself, associates and everyone else, none of these words are really used that much in modern English. The obnoxious thing is that historians use the word "Galwegian" when translating or utilizing "English" sources, but "Gall-Gaedhil" (or variant) when "translating" or utilizing "Irish" sources. This is partly because of the limited horizons of the historians in these respective areas, and it's only rather recently (owing much to a popular article by Daphne Brooke) that it's become clear to historians of the former inclination that they are the same people.
 * I think we can all agree on the event horizon problem. There must be a wonderful piece of mathematical research to be written about the mass of verbiage on any given subject, the proximity and duration of a given academic to it and the likelihood of their never returning to the known universe after prolonged exposure. You read it here first. I think you must mean "historian's jargon" rather than "modern English" but I am happy to let you decide.


 * "culturally Scandinavian"? I'm curious to know more about the details (although I'm not suggesting they are needed in the article).
 * Yeah, no worries. Scandinavians settled in large numbers in Ireland, a densely populated (its population is, in pre-modern times, closer to England's than Scotland's), relatively wealthy but politically fragmented land. They started speaking Irish within a generation or so, and many of the Irish who lived around them started acting like them ... building long-boats, going on raids, carrying Norse weapons, and so on. Historians who work in Irish Sea history believe that settlers from this area overwhelmed much of the British coast in the later 9th and 10th century.
 * I do remember reading something before about, what are they called - the Vikings? - but seriously folks, it's the detail. Going on raids was hardly unknown in the 6th century and given the paucity of Viking archaeological remains in the Hebrides I'm curious to know if you are aware of anything more specific about the "culture". The Italians now wear football shirts and wander about Europe in large bands. That doesn't make them Rangers fans.
 * I had a big laugh at this point :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We aim to please :-) Ben   Mac  Dui  23:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I have grumbled before about this peculiar square brackets business e.g. [Oram]. No doubt MOS has some justification or other but it looks odd to me.
 * Me too. I didn't put that in, and I don't see it as necessary when there is only one citation in the following note ... never actually come across this before. If you wanna remove it, go ahead. :)
 * Really dahling, how boring.


 *  Why is the picture of Threave Castle not in the section in which it is mentioned?
 * Space, i.e. the same section has the family material and thus the genealogy is there. This part of the article was originally bigger btw. I moved it up to the above section so that part of it was included.


 * Is "Historian Richard Oram" a title of some kind? Having mentioned it once can we not just call him "Oram"? Likewise Woolf. 
 * A number of FA regs insist that authorities are introduced in such a manner. Can't say I'm a fan myself.
 * Lets' start cabal to overturn this egregious nonsense. Do you really mean they have to be so described every time they are mentioned?
 * I'm sure it only needs to be done the first time, not every time. For lay readers, that initial bit of context is helpful. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * James A Morris - missing a period or apostrophe after "A"?
 * Cheers. Added the period.


 * At the end of the Ruler of Carrick we discuss the "minority of Donnchadh's granddaughter", but assuming this is "the lass" we later seem to think she was his great grand-daughter. I realise it's better to have the link lower down - not sure what to suggest.
 * Thanks. I replaced this with "during the minority of Donnchadh's descendant Countess Marjory of Carrick", and delinked further down.


 * By showing off (Sumarliði) we may have lost the opportunity to link to Somerled.
 * This is there because someone in a previous review wanted the Norse names. I've added Somerled, with a link.


 * Let me know if you have any further points. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 06:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All done, feel free to archive or whatever your chosen method of destruction is. Ben   Mac  Dui  08:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Lets' start cabal to overturn this egregious nonsense. Do you really mean they have to be so described every time they are mentioned?
 * I think (and hope) it's only when they are first introduced. There are a few FAC idiosyncrasies like this. But if we're gonna start a cabal, it should be for ridding this place of multiple footnotes in the same location.
 * All done, feel free to archive or whatever your chosen method of destruction is. 
 * Cheers. I wouldn't dream of touching your text, but User:Ealdgyth just cut/pasted hers onto the talk. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Conditional Support Did Deacon disappear? I Support with the understanding than my comments and Ben MacDui's will be addressed. &bull; Ling.Nut 12:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, no, still here. Was away from the computer for a while. Have responded now. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 06:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Support, except for the maps. (Personal pref only)
 * It's probably a personal style thing, but I'd audit for unnecessary commas. I caught the one after "magnate", "decade", "Courcy" and "territory". Don't you agree it would flow better without? BTW, in deciding whether to use an optional comma, I'd account for sentence length and the presence of other commas in the vicinity, inter alia.
 * "Although denied succession to the full lordship of the Gall-Gaidhil, or even most of its lands, he was granted lordship over Carrick in the west." I'm unsure, but is this correct? "Although denied succession to the lordship of the whole of Gall-Gaidhil, or even most of its lands, he was granted lordship over Carrick in the west." I was a little confused over full vs most. But maybe it's OK.
 * "first mormaer (earl) of Carrick"—watch those ambiguous equative ors.
 * Fussy: "He fought Irish battles in alliance"? (Avoid in in?)
 * "ruled for more than six decades" just a little nicer, I think.
 * Consider semicolons after "Cumberland" and "king", since there are internal commas in that list.
 * The first map tells me nothing, because the text requires a strong magnifying glass to decipher. Please boost the text size and the image size—significantly.
 * Why is the Island of Dee image so small? The caption is skyscraper-tall, too. Try 240px; or 250.
 * Second map; I've boosted the size to see whether the text is viable—it is, but why are some of the place-names all caps? They make it very hard to read (crowded). Unspaced en dash for the key, but if you didn't create the image, don't worry. Tony   (talk)  14:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these comments, Tony. As above, I'll respond point by point:
 * It's probably a personal style thing, but I'd audit for unnecessary commas. I caught the one after "magnate", "decade", "Courcy" and "territory". Don't you agree it would flow better without? BTW, in deciding whether to use an optional comma, I'd account for sentence length and the presence of other commas in the vicinity, inter alia.
 * Fair enough ... I went over it trying to prune a few not totally necessary commas.
 * "Although denied succession to the full lordship of the Gall-Gaidhil, or even most of its lands, he was granted lordship over Carrick in the west." I'm unsure, but is this correct? "Although denied succession to the lordship of the whole of Gall-Gaidhil, or even most of its lands, he was granted lordship over Carrick in the west."
 * I altered this sentence now. I got rid of "most", since it's a tad confusing and is redundant anyway.


 * "first mormaer (earl) of Carrick"—watch those ambiguous equative ors.
 * Fixed


 * Fussy: "He fought Irish battles in alliance"? (Avoid in in?)
 * Changed to "Allied to John de Courcy, Donnchadh fought battles in Ireland "


 * "ruled for more than six decades" just a little nicer, I think.
 * Changed accordingly. My one concern over this wording is that it might imply a number of decades more than six rather than a period of time longer than six decades, but probably no-one will read it like that.


 * Consider semicolons after "Cumberland" and "king", since there are internal commas in that list.
 * Done.


 * The first map tells me nothing, because the text requires a strong magnifying glass to decipher. Please boost the text size and the image size—significantly.
 * I won't be able to increase the text size, but I'll drop the maker (User:Notuncurious) a note, and maybe he can do something. I increased the in-wiki size to 350 for the maps (same as for the genealogy), but I should say that all these images already appeared fine on my screen. I'll take it my screen isn't representative. The images still look fine, but since my screen is so weird maybe they're gigantic on the screens of others?


 * Second map; I've boosted the size to see whether the text is viable—it is, but why are some of the place-names all caps? They make it very hard to read (crowded). Unspaced en dash for the key, but if you didn't create the image, don't worry. 
 * The CAPS text are names of parish churches, as distinguished from other important locations that aren't parish churches. The image was created by Notuncurious, but based on a crapper one done by me. It is very tough to get so many locations on such a small area when all the available base-maps are so poor. I'll leave him a note about your comments, and maybe something will get better. Thanks again for the comments. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just got a note from Deacon ... sorry, I wasn't watching what was going on. I'll adjust the map accordingly, to address present and future concerns. For File:Carrick.13th.to.14th.century.jpg:
 * (a) I'll add a locator submap;
 * (b) agreed re "crowding" ... options seem to be
 * (b1) make image large in article (not too large), but make text smaller (ps - all-caps is arbitrary to distinguish towns from churches; it should be whatever you think is most preferable). This also means title box can be smaller but still readable, producing room for the locator submap.
 * (b2) if a smaller image in the article is desired, perhaps the least-bad way to go is to make text of the towns very small, leaving text of the churches readable without expanding the image. To see an example: the fort names in File:Roman.Scotland.north.84.jpg, with the reader experience shown here.
 * (c) if I've missed something, or if someone has a suggested improvement, please mention them.
 * Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Deacon, can you please follow-up with NuclearWarfare to see what needs to be done to resolve the image concer for the File:Carrick.13th.to.1th.century.jpg? NW may not be watching the FAC. Thanks. Karanacs (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I contacted him. I dunno if he's gonna respond, but if someone can clarify what he meant by "image of the underlying source" that would be helpful. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 23:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * NW was active but unresponsive. After a discussion, the problem has been addressed (assuming Angus was correct about what NW meant). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that; I forgot to watchlist this page. The images are all good. NW ( Talk ) 12:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh both maps are SOOO much better. Thank you. You might have tried, say, a small Christian cross icon after each church name instead of caps (if there is one—there must be). But what has been done is fine. If the second map is too large in anyone's opinion it could even be a tad small in pixel width and still be OK. PS suggestion for next time: a slightly less garish blue colour for the sea? Well done, Notuncurious. Tony   (talk)  10:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.