Wikipedia:Featured article review/Óengus I/archive1


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

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC).

Óengus I

 * Notified: Deacon of Pndapetzim, Stemonitis, Laird of abbeyhill, WP Medieval Scotland, WP Bio, WP MILHIST, WP Middle Ages, WP Politics, noticed in January 2021

The first half of this article is largely referenced with footnotes rather than citations, and it is quite unclear that many of these footnotes are actually intended to support the text as references. For instance, it's not clear if "John Bannerman, Studies in the History of Dalriada (1974), remains the standard work on Dál Riata." is actually meant as a footnote about a general source, or if it's meant to source the content. "Óengus and the Picts appear occasionally in Welsh sources, such as the Annales Cambriae, and more frequently in Northumbrian sources," is apparently sourced to a note referring to where the primary sources are generally collected; if that note is suppose to be direct support for how often Oengus is referenced, it is not obvious. There are also small amounts of uncited text, including several of the footnotes. As it is not clear if the issues here are lack of support or just a problematic referencing format, I was reluctant to take this here, but as it was one of the oldest at both WP:URFA/2020A and WP:FARGIVEN, I decided to get a hearing here. Hopefully this can get sorted out and the star can be kept. The largest contributor is Angus McClellan, who has sadly passed on, so hopefully this can be rescued in their memory. Hog Farm Talk 04:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * - I see you've added some sources here - any thoughts on this one? Hog Farm Talk 23:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * per the last sentence of your nom, I'd also like to keep the article's status. It shouldn't be impossible; I've a few of the sources and others are available. It's really a matter of time—apart from weekends, I only have a couple of hours in the evenings for WP at the moment, so it could be a slow process. Particularly as I might have over-extended my supply lines, as it were, a bit :)    SN54129  18:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Take the time you need, just keep us posted on updates :) Hog Farm Talk 19:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

- This one's close to a keep, I think. Looks like the lead is the source of most of what I spotted. Hog Farm Talk 15:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working on the article, but it looks like you haven't edited it since 26 March. Would it be better to put it on hold until you have time to focus on this article? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sir Yes Sir! Buidhe, get you from the Gunnery Sergeant's training school :p  My Song, to help remind me: "This is at FAR / This is begun / This is a citation / This is for fun"  :)    SN54129  19:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As it is not clear if the issues here are lack of support or just a problematic referencing format summed it up, I still haven't a clue. As a result, I added sources for things that ought to have them, and checked source/text integrity as I went. Sometimes this failed, and text was removed in its entirely. This especially applied to the bizarre footnotes, the number of which has been reduced; in some cases merged with the text, in others the cites have been used as actual cites rather than vague gestures towards general sources. 53 refs when I began. 138 now. I think V is satis. (Although note I'm waiting for a couple of chapters unavailable to, me from WP:RX).Glaoch  :)   SN54129  17:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Great work! I can re-review this week if you're ready, but it's looking to be in good shape now. Hog Farm Talk 17:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * yeah, go ahead. I've only been looking at sourcing and sc/txt integrity, but feel free to take a broader look. The only other thing off the top of my head is replacing the IB image (which wasn't PD-Art licence worthy in the first place) and alt text, which I've added. Removed duplicate links. Can't think of anything else at this time of night!  SN54129  18:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The lead refers to him as the son of Fergus, but this relationship doesn't seem to be mentioned in the body?
 * Added some background re his father and their many names (also Fergus is even more shadowy than the rest!)
 * "and Talorgan (died 782)" - the linked Talorgan gives different dates, but has a confusing history and appears to have been hijacked for a possibly different Talorgan?
 * Yes; I boldly restored the original version; I can't find anyone relevant to this name who died in the year the 'revised' article proposed, so it's either a mistake or an attempted hoax I guess. Anyway, this Talorgan has sources; that newer one did not. Have also added a sourced (and colorful!) family tree which hopefully illustrates the complex relations of the article.
 * "Historians have noted Óengus's decisive military victories over a broad geographical area,[136], his cultural patronage[137][114] religious foundation of St Andrews.[94]" - something seems to have gone wrong here
 * Yes, my English. Corrected.
 * "until defeat at the hands of Vikings in 839 began a new period of instability, ending with the coming to power of another Pictish line, that of Cináed mac Ailpín." - in the lead, doesn't seem to be reflected in the body?
 * Bodified, sourced.
 * "The unprecedented gains he made, and the legacy he left, mean Óengus can be considered the first king of what would become Scotland." - in the lead, not seeing this claim in the body?
 * Ditto, added sourced material. Now 142 refs.
 * Right, think I caught them; I realise that, as I was focussing on referencing, and the lead is rarely referenced, ergo, I paid little attention to it. A lesson there! I've commented on your suggestions above.  SN54129  03:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, all the concerns I had here have been addressed. Hog Farm Talk 04:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep referencing problems seem to have been sorted. I made some MOS edits, but otherwise I think this is a keep. Z1720 (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.