Talk:The Tale of Mac Da Thó's Pig/GA1

Latest comment: 14 years ago by Jezhotwells in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply


I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: Fixed 2 dabs. [1]

Linkrot: No dead links found. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Checking against GA criteria

edit
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    "[I]n the few remarks made by Mac Da Thó to his visitors, all his previous train of though, all his cunning and address, are suggested in a few brief words intended by him to hide his true designs from his guests, while suggesting to ourselves his hidden intention." Is though a typo? I would have assumed thought!   Done
    The tale was apparently also popular in later times, ...was also apparently... would read better.   Done
    The red wikilink to Mag nAilbi should be added to the first instance of this place name a few lines above.   Done
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    Assume good faith for all offline sources.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    Thorough, clear and not unnecessarily detailed.
  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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
    Correctly tagged, captioned and licensed.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    This is very good, just a few minor points to be addressed. On hold for seven days. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)  DoneReply
    Good work, an excellent and interesting article, well worthy of GA status. I suggest you get a peer review and then consider going to to WP:FAC. Passing as GA. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply


Wow, that has to be my least troublesome GA nomination on record. Minor editorial fixes here per above. "Though" was indeed a typo for "thought". Thanks for the review. --Grimhelm (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply