Wikipedia:Peer review/Viking/archive1

Viking
I wish to have the article peer reviewed. The points of interest are Viking Ships and The Viking invasions: a commercial war, but I also want to see a full peer review. My main concern is the lack of references, but there have also been claims of self contradictions. --  Orbit One    [ Talk 22:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have a few comments which I hope are of some help:
 * Yes it definitely needs references.
 * I think I'd prefer it if the first paragraph were entirely about viking history, and any etymology was moved down to the second paragraph. Thus "Vikings were Norse warriors who raided the coast..." The bit about the "loanword" just seems distracting.
 * The entire introduction could stand to be another paragraph longer. Likewise I'd like the article to jump right into the history, and save the etymology for later. I'd like to enter the "The Viking Age" section as soon as I start reading.
 * The article definitely needs more artwork, and possibly a map. There should be a nice graphic right at the top that shows a viking and possibly a longship.
 * There are some citations in the text that could be converted to inline references. (E.g. Sawyer, P H: 1997.)
 * Finally I'd like to see a section about the consequences of the Viking activities.
 * All IMO of course. :) &mdash; RJH 17:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the first introduction section should probably be a summary, not so much about the word. Sarah crane 20:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to raise a couple of points, mainly regarding the structure of the article: Tankred 17:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The structure of the article is quite unclear and the reader might feel a bit lost. IMO, the sections about Viking ships and Historical Records should be placed after the description of events (Viking Age). (Btw, the section about historical records may parhaps discuss more the image of Vikings in the chronicles written by monks - their usual victims.) Books and Movies can be perhaps put together. Some very short sub-sections (merely paragraphs in fact) should be expanded or their headings should be droped.
 * The Viking Age section is not very comprehensive and its sub-sections are too short. The core of the text is devoted to a theory with little support from scientists. I think it should include main events of the Viking Age, main wars and raids. This key part would also need a map of Viking raids.
 * Similarly, it would be nice to illustrate the Ships section by a picture.
 * There are also too many unnecessary red links to non-existing articles (for example about movies).
 * I would also suggest to include a part about a typical Viking career (sea-kings and so one) and a few words about the life style (campaigns, religion, slaves, etc.).

Hey, this was linked from the front page! Cool. That's a good excuse to clean it up... Sarah crane 13:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The current edit war should be resolved and more sources should be added. Inge 13:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I wish the article would reflect a modern view, instead of 1800 century romantics. Dan Koehl 07:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I once again remind about the important written source of the saga of Egil Skallagrimsson.

He clearly writes; Björn var farmaður mikill, var stundum í víking, en stundum í kaupferðum, which translates in english: Björn was a great traveller; sometimes as viking, sometimes as tradesman. As a written source it indicates that no viking were a tradesman, as viking.

I also remind you about the attack of arabic pirats in the middle sea, who are called vikings. Yes, also arabic people could be pirats, and therefore they are sometimes called vikings in the sagas. There are however, no written sources stating that a viking was trading peacefully. And you will never find it.

You can write in the article that vikings were traders that performed trading, but its not true, and not 1 source suports this rmaontisims which started from 1910.

The article is just full of myths, which are not supported by written sources from the very period. Its a shame.

Dan Koehl 19:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)