Talk:Domnall mac Taidc/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 17:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Brianann MacAmhlaidh, I will engage in thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Brianann MacAmhlaidh, I've completed a thorough, thoughtful, and comprehensive review and re-review of this article and I find that it exceeds the criteria for passage to Good Article status. Before it passes, I do have some comments and suggestions that should be addressed first. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! -- West Virginian (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lede

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines Domnall mac Taidc, establishes Domnall mac Taidc's necessary context, and explains why Domnall mac Taidc is otherwise notable.
• The info box for the monarch is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
• The image of Domnall's name as it appears on folio 33r of British Library MS Cotton Julius A VII has been released into the public domain and is therefore suitable for inclusion in this article.
• Kingdom of the Isles can be de-linked in its second use in the first paragraph.

• Done.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Parentage

• The image of the locations relating to Domnall's life and times is licensed CC BY-SA 4.0 and is therefore free to use here in this article.
• I wonder if this section would be better worded as "Family" or "Origin and family." "Parentage" still works, but I just wanted to make some alternative suggestions.

• OK, I've changed the title to "Familial origins".--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Uí Briain intervention in Dublin

• "That being said" seems a bit WP:COLLOQUIAL. Perhaps rephrase with the sentence beginning with However.

• Done.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• The second wiki-link to Kingdom of Dublin can be de-linked in the third sentence from the end of this section.

• Done.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• In the next to last sentence, it may be more appropriate to name Flanagan here and say Historian M. T. Flanagan asserts... or According to historian M. T. Flanagan...

• I'd rather be consistant and not drop names of historians in text.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Meic Taidc interference in the Isles

• The image of the excerpt from folio 458v of Royal Irish Academy MS C iii 3 was released into the public domain and is therefore acceptable for use here in this article.
• This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.

Norwegian ascendancy in Dublin and the Isles

• The image of the nineteenth-century depiction of Magnús' forces in Ireland has been released into the public domain and is therefore acceptable for use here.
• This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.

Restoration in the Isles; death in Ireland

• The image of the excerpt from folio 33r of Bodleian Library MS Rawlinson B 503 was released into the public domain and it is suitable for use here.
• The image of the excerpt from folio 34r of Bodleian Library MS Rawlinson B 503 has also been released into the public domain and it too is acceptable for use here.
• "In fact" is overused a bit in this section. I would suggest finding some ways to rephrase some of these mentions.

• Ok, got it.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Ancestry

• This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.
  • Brianann MacAmhlaidh, thank you for your thoughtful and timely responses to my comments and suggestions. I hereby pass this article to Good Article status, and congratulate you on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)