# Talk:Amlaíb Conung

Ímar and Óisle were brothers, but I don't think Amlaíb was their brother. It all depends on the identity of Olaf the White: was he the Norwegian descendant of Halfdan Hvitbeinn who took Dublin in 853, or was he the Danish warlord who plundered Dublin in 851?
Ímar (Ivar the Boneless) and Óisle (Hasli) were said to be Danes, sons of the semi-legendary Ragnar Lodbrok.
It's all very obscure. --Eroica 12:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the Irish annals, Ímar was Amlaíb's brother (FAA ¶ 239) and Oísle was Amlaíb's brother (FAA ¶ 347). The Fragmentary Annals were compiled 150 years or so after these events, so they aren't exactly contemporary. Still, they are based on annals, rather than just stories, so they are more likely to contain some truth than the tales of Ragnar's sons. As the notes say, some historians do believe that Amlaíb was Olaf the White and Ímar Ivar the Boneless, but some don't. I knew there was an Olaf the White article when I wrote this, I just did see any obvious way to combine the two. It is very obscure. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 14:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Would Gofraid be the Danish king Gudfred who ruled around the time Amlaibh must have been born? (I realize that pretty much everyone in Scandinavia is semi-legendary at this time depth )User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The name Conung sounds a lot like the Swedish word for king (Konung). Is this just a coincidence? JohanK (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

@JohanK: Apparently not: according to The Vikings in Scotland and Ireland in the Ninth Century, Donnchad Ó Corrain, 1998, p. 2 it is from the Old Norse konungr, meaning king. benzband (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Amlaíb Conung/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: 3family6 (talk · contribs) 04:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 
No meaningful results found in a copyvio check.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
"Another Viking leader, Halfdan Ragnarsson, is sometimes considered a brother." - Does this mean "in some sources considered a brother?" And again, here: "Amlaíb is sometimes considered identical to Olaf the White, a Viking sea-king who features in the Landnámabók and other Icelandic sagas."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I've changed both so it now reads "some scholars consider...". No primary source names Halfdan as a brother to Amlaib, and no primary source names Olaf and Amlaib as the same person, but they have been inferred by later historians. I don't think its fair to say they are consensus views however. Retroplum (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, it reads much better now.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The final sentence in the lead should be merged into one of the other paragraphs. I'd suggest the first.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Done. Retroplum (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
"Although there is no certain evidence to suggest that this Caitill is the same person as the Ketill Flatnose of later sagas, it has been suggested that they are the same person." - Suggested by whom?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Done. Retroplum (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
"This has led some scholars to conclude he is identical to Ivar the Boneless, a Viking leader who was active in England during this period as a commander of the Great Heathen Army." - Which scholars? If Downham doesn't specify, then at least note that Downham is the one who states this. Again with this sentence: "Some scholars identify Halfdan Ragnarsson as another brother."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Downham is now mentioned explicitly in text. I also added a brief sentence mentioning there is dispute as to whether they are the same. I have done something similar for the second sentence. Retroplum (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
"for four months in 870 Amlaíb and Ímar (once more appearing in the Irish Annals after an absence of six years) laid siege to Dumbarton Rock, the chief fortress of the Kingdom of Strathclyde.[54]" - And the outcome? The image caption says it was a victory, but the article prose doesn't specify.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Oops, not sure how I missed that. Fixed. Retroplum (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
"A solution has been suggested for this apparent contradiction—the Vikings did not distinguish between the Gaelic peoples of Scotland and Ireland.[61]" - Proposed by whom?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Fixed Retroplum (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
Follows MOS.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 
Well formatted reference sections provided.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary: 
If anything, this article is over-cited. I'm accepting the sources AGF, as they are all solid, academic works or primary sources.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
C. No original research: 
"It has been suggested the Thorstein and Oistin are the same person, but this too is problematic since Thorstein is said to have died in Scotland after conquering much of the country, whereas Oistin is said to have been killed in Ireland in 875 by Albann..." - Is the comment "this too is problematic" stated in one of the sources, or is this original synthesis?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, I did have a source for this but perhaps I was mistaken. I've found a source that does mention this issue, though it only speaks of a "discrepancy in the dates". I've reworded it so the text matches the source. Retroplum (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, that's fine.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
Article focuses on major aspects.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
B. Focused: 
Stays focused on Amlaib, no extraneous content.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
Fair, neutral presentation, discusses the various historical perspectives and the ambiguities surrounding the subject.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
No disruptions since the article was created about 9 years ago.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
Articles are public domain or else under Creative Commons.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Images are relevant, with appropriate captions.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The family tree image is very small and practically useless. The family information would better be conveyed through a template, such as that used at Stephen III of Hungary.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I've made a much clearer family tree per your suggestion. I think it looks better, but I don't know if its displayed in the best way. It's currently displayed the same way as the tree on War of the Spanish Succession, but it might be preferable to have it simply without the collapsed box (like Cnut the Great), I'm not sure, what do you think? Retroplum (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
That's totally something for your discretion, and doesn't affect the review.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Overall: Almost there, but still needs a bit of work.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Nice job, Retroplum. The only outstanding issue is the family tree.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Y Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the thorough review. Retroplum (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Pass or Fail: 

They likely came from a different region of the Scandinavian Empire than the light foreigners. Perhaps Finland? The article points out that they were a different group and that they were differentiated as light and dark. But does not mention the region they could have been from.68.40.122.133 (talk) 12:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)