Talk:Amlaíb Cuarán/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
In the lead, the sentence "A king for forty years, he was an indomitable, but far from invincible warrior, and a ruthless pillager of churches, who ended his days in respectable retirement at Iona Abbey." is clumsy.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
I'm not sure what ref #12 stands for, as it simple says "add".

The "From Dublin to Tara" section is completely unreferenced, which is particularly odd considering how well referenced the rest of the article is.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Overall, this is a very nice article. I have a couple of comments about referencing and one clumsy sentence that I would like to see tweaked, so I am going to put the article on hold. I have this review page watchlisted, so if you have questions, please feel free to drop me a note here. Dana boomer (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. It still needs work. As you say, the "From Dublin to Tara" bit is not done. There's more to be said on Amlaíb's offspring and wives. The lead mentions Havelock the Dane but the body of the article doesn't, yet. I can address some of these issues quickly enough, but to finish things off I'd need a couple of weeks because a number of the books I need are elsewhere. Again, thanks! Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh...didn't realize it was still a WIP, and I apparently completely missed the whole Havelock thing. Would you prefer that I put the article on hold for a couple of weeks until you finish it off, or would you like to withdraw the nom and have me promise to put it at the top of my to-do list when you renom? Your choice, I'm fine with either. Dana boomer (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been a work in (no-)progress for a year. There's nothing like a deadline to focus the mind! If I can have two weeks I should be able to address all the points and add the important stuff that I wanted to include. Will that be ok? Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that will be fine. Just drop me a note here or on my talk page when you consider it finished (or at least GA-ready)! Dana boomer (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How are things going on this article? I see that quite a bit of work was done soon after the initial review, but I haven't been sure if everything was complete in your eyes. Let me know and I'll do a final review for any nitpicks I may have. Sorry about the late comment, I kept forgetting to drop a note here :) Dana boomer (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to have to fail this article's GA nomination. I have heard nothing back on the status of this article for over a week, despite posts here and on the main editor's talk page. I enjoyed reading this article the first time, and think that it has probably only improved since then, but I can't pass it without editor input. When and if you decide to renominate it, I would be happy to re-review the article. Just drop a note on my talk page and I will get to it as fast as I can. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]