Wikipedia:Featured article review/Áedán mac Gabráin
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept by Joelr31 16:00, 12 April 2009 [1].
This article was promoted over two years ago now and presumably is rather in need of improvement. I am hopeful of running it on the front page on 17 April, the putative 1400th anniversary [yeah, right!] of the subject's death, so rather than have an almighty rush to fix it up then, I'd be grateful for any and all comments now. I have my own ideas on what needs fixing, so I'll be working on it anyway, but please do comment! Many thanks in advance, Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it certainly meets all the criteria! The only comment I have is that by the time I'd got to "Degsastan appears not to have...", I'd forgotten what Degsastan was and why it was important, since it was only mentioned briefly before in the lead. It's a sharp transition to that from the end of the last section. I'd add an introductory sentence or two to the "Degsastan and after" section just to set the scene. I'd also note the supposed year of the battle, 603, in the first sentence of the section. DrKiernan (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone else want to take a look at this one? Joelito (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am a bit uncomfortable on the reliance on Adomnán which is a primary source. The article should rely on modern secondary sources. Anderson is used but that one is from 1922. That leaves Bannerman 1974 which is lightly used. This one would probably fail FAC due to 1c. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I will be addressing this as suggested by Ealdgyth at the article's talk page, by adding material from Fraser's Caledonia to Pictland. So I hope it will be resolved by next week. Many thanks! Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Has the primary sources concern been addressed? Joelito (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.