Talk:Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Sotakeit (talk · contribs) 21:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Johannes Schade! I've put this GA review on hold for the moment to give you chance to correct some clear citation issues. As per WP:GAFAIL, any articles with extant cleanup banners qualify for immediate failure. Although in areas the article is very well cited, there are still quite a few statements missing citations. If you could correct this, I'll continue with the review. Let me know if you have any questions in the meantime. Sotakeit (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sotakeit: Dear Sotakeit. Thank you very much for taking on this review. Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty is my first GA nomination. I see that you have created 233 pages, of which 34 articles. I looked at Saint-Sulpice, Paris, which is very nice and particularly well-illustrated. I am still a bit of a novice. I read up in the instructions and see that "articles with cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid" should be failed immediately. Thank you for rather putting this review on hold. I feel that it is not up to me to remove the cleanup banner as I am evidently biased. I must admit that I do not see where the "missing citations" should be. Could you eventually add some "Citation needed" maintenance tags to guide me? I hope to collaborate well with you and learn a lot. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 08:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sotakeit: Dear Sotakeit. A week is gone. I have added 36 citations. I am not sure that this has fixed the issue as in the process I also added more content and the citation density (18 words/citation) stayed the same. What do you think? With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay @Johannes Schade:. Life getting in the way. I've removed the hold tag and hopefully I'll get through this this evening or tomorrow. On a first glance it's a good article, so I don't think there is likely to be many suggestions. Will update you ASAP. Sotakeit (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Johannes Schade:, thanks for baring with me. Overall I think thing the article is good. With some tweaking in areas, I think it would pass on all six criteria. I made some minor changes with language, there being quite a few examples of what I think would be considered informal English. I've made some suggestions below that would need addressing. Sotakeit (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sotakeit. I am glad to hear from you. I do not seem to find citations for the 6 statements you mention. (1 & 2)I have deleted the first two. Nothing is known and things could perhaps be different from what I imagined. (3) The 3rd "Sir Donough, as an Irish Catholic, therefore expected to see the graces confirmed in this parliament in which he was sitting." I wonder whether it really needs a citation. (4) I reformulated I think it should be understandable and obvious without another citation. (5) This is not a sentence I wrote. I am still looking for where it came from. (5) Lieutenants could leave Ireland and appoint a Deputy who stood in for them. — You find the term "grace" old-fashioned. However, this is the name used by the historians. I found, however, that Wikipedia has an article The Graces (Ireland), which I had overlooked, so I reworded a bit and linked to this article. — I changed reign to tenure, the Infobox seems to tolerate this. — Mountgarret had become the President of the Confederacy. I reworded to make this clear. That's it for today. With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sotakeit. I deleted the sentence about knighthood being a bonus, but kept the Efn. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sotakeit. I have doubts about the usefulness of the two tables of sessions. Perhaps I should throw them out. I replaced all 10-digit ISBNs with 13-digit ISBNs in the sources. I added citations for the two small family trees, which did not have any up-to-now, but I wonder what the right way is to provide verifiability for a family tree. User Jdorney has given me a citation for Cromwell "His aims were avenging ...". Unluckily, that source is not accessible online.

Dear Sotakeit: I added an anchor to link to for the issue-link in the Infobox. Also a citation for Brian Boru.

Dear Sotakeit. I added the citation that you demanded (1.A.1.6) showing that the Lord Lieutenant had the right to appoint a Deputy under him.

@Sotakeit: We are going nowhere. I want to withdraw the nomination. Please, just fail the GA. I will then restart with a different reviewer.

@Sotakeit: I consider you have withdrawn from this review. Not knowing why you do not respond, I thank you for your efforts and hold you are well. I will follow the instructions under "If the reviewer withdraws" and open GA2, hoping to get a new reviewer soon. Johannes Schade (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
1. I've removed the citation banner as, on the whole, the article is well sourced. There are still a few statements that I think need to be referenced:
  1. "She must have converted to Catholicism to do so."
  2. "The subsidiary title, Baron Blarney, was certainly meant as a courtesy title for Donough MacCarty, but apparently he never used the name."
  3. "Sir Donough, as an Irish Catholic, therefore expected to see the graces confirmed in this parliament in which he was sitting."
  4. "... who was however powerless in Confederate territory."
  5. "His aims were avenging the uprising of 1641, confiscating enough Irish Catholic-owned land to pay off some of the Parliament's debts, and eliminating a dangerous outpost of royalism."
  6. "...and therefore could now appoint a deputy under him."
2. The use of "reign" in the infobox doesn't quite fit here. Perhaps "tenure", as used here, is a better option?
3. I'm unsure of the meaning of the use of "graces" here, and subsequently throughout this paragraph. I'm not sure this is standard English anymore: "King Charles I had let know in 1626 that he was ready to grant "graces" to the Irish Catholics against payment". Maybe an explanation or a synonym?
4. Some clarification needed here I suspect: "...at the capital he was received by President Mountgarret". President of what? Mountgarret is mentioned previously without the title.
5. There are nine uses of the word "probably". I would suggest using some synonyms or alternatives. "Likely" perhaps?
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
1. Is there a better way of phrasing "Some said that Muskerry avoided...". Who said this? See MOS:WEASEL.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Well referenced.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Well referenced.

C. No original research:
1. This strikes me as original research: "Knighthood seems to still have been considered a bonus for the job". Do you have a reference to support this?
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Well illustrated.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: