User:Ottava Rima/FAC review

Review of Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick, an entry listed at WP:FAC. Date 25 July 2009.

Structure

On first glance upon the page, it appears to be a biography. There is no statement about birthyear that is discernible. The structure begins with background on where information on him comes from followed by cultural background. This separates the article from a traditional biography. "Sources" describes information on his career, which further displaces this from the biography model. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

With the level of sources, the kind of biographical model you seem to be thinking of is nonviable. It follows the bio model suitable for its purpose, the kind you'd for this kind of figure in the relevant academic literature ... i.e. emphasis on source and context. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The above is just a general musing. It is good to establish expectation levels. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead

• "Donnchadh or Donnchad (contemporary Latinisation Duncanus, later Anglicised [mainly] as Duncan) was a Gall-Gaidhil prince and Scottish magnate whose career stretched from the last quarter of the 12th century until his death in 1250."

  Birth year is missing from article, which makes its absence appropriate. The use of "prince" is not apparent from the body of the text. The term "prince" appears a few times, but not directly stating that he is a prince (assumption is that by being a son of a monarch that you are a prince, but that is not always the case). The term "magnate" is also missing from being directly attached to him within the body of the text. The range of his career appears to have corresponding information within the information box, but there is nothing in the body of the text to suggest that 1186 was a year that he first "began" a career. There are three missing corresponding pieces of information lacking from the body of text, thus fails WP:LEAD summary requirements. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, birth year is unknown. It's "c. 1186" rather than "1186" ... i.e. yes, you are right, there is no precision on this, but 1186 is the date when his rival submits to his protector, and is likely. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• "His father, Gille-Brighde of Galloway, and uncle, Uhtred of Galloway, were the two rival sons of Fergus, "King" or "Lord" of Galloway."

  The term "rival sons" is confusing, especially when there is no hyphen to show that one modifies the other directly. The body of the text does discuss his father in that role. The status of his uncle is established through use of "half-brother Uhtred" when referring to his father. The body of the text simply calls their father "king of the Gall-Gaidhil". Further information in the text suggests that Galloway does not equal Gall-Gaidhil ("References in the 11th century to the kingdom of the Gall-Gaidhil centre it far to the north of what is now Galloway.") and that they are terms that denote two different objects. This detail will need to be corrected per WP:LEAD's summary requirements. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The further information in the texts shows why Gall-Gaidhil is preferable to "Galloway", Galloway now being a fixed location. Incidentally, there was more information on the grandfather, father and uncle in the article before the GAN, when it was removed at the reviewer's recommendation. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• "As a result of his father's conflict with Uhtred and the Scottish king William the Lion, Donnchadh became a hostage of King Henry II of England."

  The beginning clause is lengthy and creates a rhetorical imbalance in the statement (as such, the beginning and normally unimportant matters take rhetorical priority of the main clause of the sentence). The claim "result of his father's conflict" is misleading, as it would suggest a lost and is different than the impression from the body of the text ("Having defeated his brother, Gille-Brighde unsuccessfully sought to become a direct vassal of Henry II, king of England.[44] An agreement was obtained with Henry in 1176, Gille-Brighde promising to pay him 1000 marks of silver and handing over his son Donnchadh as a hostage."). This would have to be altered to conform to WP:LEAD summary requirements. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Honestly, I don't follow what you mean. I probably need to get more used to your style. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• "He remained in England for nearly a decade until the death of his father, when he returned to the north."

  The body of the text suggests that he was a hostage from 1176 onwards ("for nine years later,"). Nine years is nearly a decade. However, the way the sentence reads is that he left England after nine years, and not that he was released upon his father's death, which was nine years later. There is no information in the body of the text that states that he was kept in England during this time. As such, the sentence fails the WP:LEAD summary requirements. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Exile and return para 2 mentions he was handed over in 1176, and para 3 that he was still there in 1186, when he was probably released. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Although denied succession to the full lordship of the Gall-Gaidhil, or even most of its lands, he was given lordship of Carrick."

  The statement begins with an introductory clause and is followed by a parenthetical to the introductory clause. Thus, you have two secondary clauses and a tiny primary clause following. This is rhetorically unstable. The term "denied" is not found within the text. There is little information in the body to draw such a conclusion of denial ("There is no record of any subsequent court hearing, but the Gesta Annalia I related that Donnchadh was granted Carrick on condition of peace with Lochlann, and emphasises the role of King William (as opposed to Henry) in resolving the conflict"). He did become ruler of Carrick, but "lord" would be a term that is complicated and hard to resolve via the text. As such, it should be changed to something similar to "granted rule over Carrick". As such, the sentence fails the WP:LEAD summary requirements. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• I reversed the order to "He was granted lordship over Carrick, although denied succession to the full lordship of the Gall-Gaidhil, or even most of its lands." But the current version just reads better to me. I don't understand what you think is wrong with it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Partly because of the geographic and cultural distance of the region from the centres that produced most of the literary output extant from the period, comparatively little is known about Donnchadh's life and rule."

  Use of "partly" in a beginning clause would logically suggest that there would be another aspect discussed (i.e. "partly this reason and partly that reason"). The beginning clause is much, much larger than the primary clause, which causes a rhetorical imbalance. Instead, switch the clauses around ("Comparatively little is known about Donnchadh's life and rule, partly because..."). Now, this sentence is not backed up in the body of the text. Instead, it is contradicted with the text's suggestion that there could be works but that they were lost ("This is because no charter-collections (called cartularies) from the Gaelic south-west have survived the Middle Ages"). Nothing seems to suggest a distance between literary output. As such, the sentence fails the WP:LEAD summary requirements. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would imply there are other explanations. It wouldn't necessitate these reasons be given though. Contradiction? No, the text explains it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• "He fought battles in Ireland in alliance with John de Courcy, and acquired and lost land there. "

  The use of the term "and" would suggest a rhetorical balance with "acquired and lost" with the "fought battles". Instead, the "acquired and lost" would be an effect and the "fought battles" would be the cause. This would need to be fixed. The body of the text verifies this sentence. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You've lost me on the rhetorical stuff again, but I do agree this might be phrased better. I've had a go. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• "A patron of religious houses, particularly Melrose Abbey and North Berwick nunnery, he attempted to establish a monastery in his own territory, at Crossraguel."

  This sentence is not connected to the previous, or connected together with the topic of the paragraph. Use of the term "grant" can logically suggest "patron". Patronage directly stated in regards to North Berwick. In regards to the monastery, the body of the text is muddled. It suggests that a building was built, and that the full monastery was build later. The statement in the lead is vague, but does have basis. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well it's a summary. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• "He married the daughter of Alan fitz Walter, a leading member of the family later known as the House of Stewart, future monarchs of Scotland and England."

  Unlike the two previous sentences, this one seems to focus on his life and not necessarily his rule. The second clause is a little wordy, which is the result of constant modifiers ("leading member" modified by "family" modified by "later", which is then modified by a parenthetical clause). The body of the text does not seem to verify that he was a leading member of a family as per the lead. This sentence fails WP:LEAD summary requirements. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It says he was lord of Strathgryfe, steward of Scotland, etc. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Donnchadh was the first mormaer or "earl" of Carrick."

  Body of text verifies everything but the modifier "first". This unfortunately fails WP:LEAD summary requirements. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. Added this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• "He ruled the region for over six decades, making him one of the longest serving magnates in medieval Scotland."

  I could not find anything in the body of the text that verifies that he was "one of the longest serving magnates in medieval Scotland". This sentence fails WP:LEAD summary requirements. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this matters. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• "His descendants include the Bruce and Stewart Kings of Scotland, the Kennedy Earls of Cassilis, and probably the Campbell Dukes of Argyll."

  The phrase "Bruce and Stewart" is confusing. Instead, separate them and clarify that these are families of rulers. There is no mention of the connection to the Stewart family except through his wife. Kennedy family is mentioned as with the Campbell family. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• It's clarified in the body of the text, expanding it in the lead would give it undue weight. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• Immediately, it is apparent that an image on the left causes sandwiching of text. This causes formatting and aesthetic problems. The image is too small to actually make out the words on the map. I'm confused by the claim that Mann = Isle of Man. Looking at a modern map, the placement of the island looks nothing like the placement within the older image. What I think it is, is the fact that the image has north to the right. This needs to be made apparent. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Donnchadh's career is not documented well in the surviving sources."

• This, and the following sentences, are sourced to Duncan, A. A. M. (1975), Scotland: The Making of the Kingdom. The book is not accessible to check for accuracy. I would need to see the source for verification of the statement. The use of "not documented well" does not suggest that there are no sources, nor does it suggest how many sources there are. It is vague and could mean anything. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Charters provide a little information about some of his activities, but overall their usefulness is limited."

• "usefulness is limited" is a subjective statement and I would need access to the primary source to verify. "Charter" can grant "authority or rights". We need to know which of the two these charters are and we also need to know the origin of the charters (politically speaking - on whose authority). The word "overall" cannot be considered as part of the clause that follows based on its meaning. It must be denoted as a modifier to the clause that follows via use of commas. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• "This is because no charter-collections (called cartularies) from the Gaelic south-west have survived the Middle Ages;"

• "This is because" is sing songy and rhetorically empty. The sentence structure would need to be rewritten to establish how it follows "limited usefulness" in the preceding sentence. There is also no explanation why "south-west" is important or how it deals with the page.

• "the only surviving charters relevant to Donnchadh's career come from the heavily Normanised English-speaking area to the east."

• The term "relevant" would allow for charters describing other people without having to directly mention Donnchadh. Is this intended? There is also no statement explaining why "Normanised" means anything to the page. Also, charters are not living entities, so they do not "come" in a rhetorical sense. They may have been written by Normans, or on the authority of Normans, or are simply residing in Norman archives. This needs to be specified. Also, the "east" is vague. The audience would not know the difference between southern Albany and northern Northumbria, so they probably will be confused with vague directions. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Principally, the relevant charters record his acts of patronage towards those religious houses, but incidental details mentioned in the body of these texts and the witness lists subscribed to them are useful for other matters"

• This statement is referenced with a footnote that says "A discussion of charters, in relation to the Scottish king William the Lion, can be found in Barrow (ed.), Acts of William I, pp. 68–94". This statement does not suggest that they deal with Donnchad or serve as a reference. Instead, the statement suggests that the reference is more of a "See also" than a reference. Also, the term "principally" does not rhetorically fit in with the statement. Your previous sentence discusses location. Now, you are discussing content. They are two different subject matters. The use of the word "those religious houses", but there is no previous mention of "religious houses" to allow for the use of the word "those". The use of the word "useful" is subjective and needs to be checked against a source for verification. Also, the sentence and paragraph state conjecture instead of showing fact. We are told "they are useful" instead of "___ chartes provide information on ___, ____, and ____". Our job is to summarize and report, not conjecture on importance. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)