Talk:Ascall mac Ragnaill/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 3family6 (talk · contribs) 21:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:
Very thorough reference sections.

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
Very solidly cited. Many sources are offline or are in foreign languages of which I am not familiar with, so with those I will AGF.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Definitely provides context and covers all major aspects.

B. Focused:
Ascall isn't mentioned in the majority of the article. See comments.
Y Done. Much of the content unrelated to Ascall was pared down.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
No bias that I can see.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Needs some substantial changes to overcome a lack of focus on the article subject. All other issues pass with flying colors.--¿3family6 _contribs 18:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Y Done. Despite my "flying colors" comment above, there was a glaring grammatical error. That was rectified. The focus problem has been addressed to the best extent possible considering the scarcity of source materials dealing with Ascall. Passed.--¿3family6 _contribs 16:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Focus - I am somewhat concerned that at least two-thirds of the article, not including the notes section, does not even mention Ascall. I understand the need for context, and that he was serving under an overlord, but for an article about Ascall, there really should be more content about him. I'm not sure as to how this can be rectified.--¿3family6 _contribs 18:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's much more I can add about him. In fact, I haven't actually come across a good source that specifically outlines the beginning of his reign. Clearly it must have been after Brotar's death in 1160, but Gofraid and the mysterious Ragnall mac Ragnaill could have power in the decade as well. I think I can easily gut most of the first paragraph in the first section. I'll work on whittling down the next two paragraphs as well. I'd like to keep events concerning his kingdom in the 1160s. Anyway, I'll get on it.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could also re-title and re-work the article so it is about the fall of Mac Murchada and the other events. In other words, you could make it about the overall conflict instead of Ascall. It would still require a major overhall, but you wouldn't have to gut the article. It's a lot of work either way, but I was very confused with this article, being that right now it is about Ascall.

Also, there's a grammatical error in the title of the second section. It should read, "rise of Ua Conchobair." I'm surprised that myself and some other editors all missed this - that will need to get fixed pronto.--¿3family6 _contribs 00:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I chopped some stuff off. Basically the pre-1160 stuff. What do you think?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let you know tomorrow when I've had time to review the changes.--¿3family6 _contribs 02:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I reviewed the changes but forgot to respond. The article looks much better now. Like you said, there isn't much in the source material about him. The grammar issues are fixed, and extraneous information that isn't crucial to Ascall himself has been narrowed down. Passed.--¿3family6 _contribs 16:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks for there review.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]