Talk:Fairy Flag/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   In the 19th century, the writer Rev. Norman Macleod (1783–1862)[note 1] recalled seeing the Fairy Flag during his childhood in about 1799 (see relevant section below). use a wikilink to that section. the article writer may know which is the "relevant section", but the reader will not.  Done

   Fixed.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

   Many clumsy turns of phrase throughout, e.g.:

   The Fairy Flag has been examined numerous times in the last two centuries and since this time its condition has somewhat deteriorated. ?? Poor sentence construction  Done

   Fixed, I think. I changed it to: "It has been examined numerous times in the last two centuries; during this time its condition has somewhat deteriorated".--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

   Pennant then declared that the flag was unfurled a third time in an effort to save his own life, but that the flag was then too tattered, and Titania did not seem to think his life worth fending for! - this reads as if the flag was unfurled to save Pennant's life - is that really what is meant?  Done

   Yep, that's what he said. It's a good thing you mentioned this part. I re-checked the ref, and I think the article has this part messed up a bit. The Pennant book is online, so you can see the passage yourself. Here's the quotation "The flag has been produced thrice. The first time in an unequal engagement against Clan-Ronald, to whose fight the Macleods were multiplied ten-fold. The second preserved the heir of the family, being then produced to save the longings of the lady: and the third time, to save my own; but it was to tattered, that Titania did not seem to think it worth sending for". The book uses the 1700s form of the letter "s" which looks a lot like "f". So when the article says "fending for", that should actually be "sending for". So, I think that Pennant meant that the flag saved his life on the third (and last) instance of its magic, but Titania did not bother taking the flag back, since it was too tattered. I've just changed the meaning of that part of the article, so now it says that she didn't want the flag back—not that she didn't think Pennant's life was worth "fending for".--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 11:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

   Only the eldest male living of this single family could ever unfurl the flag. - surely the eldest living male ?  Done

   Fixed.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

   Much of the material in Traditional account from a manuscript dating to c.1800 is repeated in Bannatyne manuscript' - are these the same manuscripts? The repetition is unnecessary and looks like padding.  Done

   Seems to me that they are different. The writer of one says the last flagbearer died in his father's lifetime, the other says he died in his grandfathers lifetime. The quotations that RC.MacLeod and F.T.MacLeod give don't seem to match up either. Anyway I agree about the repetition, I combined the sections, and made some subsections within.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

   N. Macleod stated that at about the same time, MacLeod's Maidens were sold to Campbell of Ensay; and he also declared to have personally seen a fox, which belonged to a Maclean, to have lived in the west turret of the castle with its cubs.  Done

   Fixed.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

   the chiefly family

   How would you reword this? It's used in the article twice, to mean the chief's immediate family, as opposed to the 'whole Clan MacLeod' which can also be considered his 'family'.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

   Not that important, perhaps the clan chief's family?

   In the early 20th century, R.C. MacLeod considered that this prophecy seemed to have been fulfilled.  Done

   Fixed.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

   R.C., better to use R.C. Macleod  Done

   Fixed.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 11:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

   This lullaby-tradition runs that on an autumn night a beautiful fairy visited Dunvegan Castle.  Done

   Fixed, I think. I changed the tense in these sections. So when the article goes into what the traditions state they are in the present tense; and the parts which state what so-n-so thinks, is in the past tense. I hope it makes it clear where the fantasy ends, and opinion begins.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

   Before parting she gave him a box of scented wood, which she told him held several smaller boxes which exactly fitted the one on the outside. - are we talking about one box inside another, or a collection of boxes which exactly fitted the outer container - please clarify.  Done

   I think they are boxes which fit inside of one another, like one of those Russian/Ukranian dolls. I changed the article to make that more clear. Here's the quote: "In this, she told him, were several smaller boxes, each of which exactly fitted the one outside it. In the inmost box was a magic banner". Since it says "innermost", I think they must all fit inside each other like the dolls.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

   The Bannatyne manuscript states that the flag was also unfurled during the Battle of Glendale, which was traditionally fought in about 1490. - better to say something like which, according to tradition, was fought around the year 1490.  Done

   I changed the wording so it's clear that the date if from the manusript. The battle in the manusript takes place in 'about 1490'; the real battle is actually considered to have been fought sometime after 1513.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 12:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

   Overall, poorly written and needs organising in a clearer manner. The lead does not fully summarise the article., please read WP:MOS and WP:LEAD. The last stray sentence of the lead should be incorporated into an earlier paragraph. Consider enlisting the help of a copy-editor to improve the prose. The Wikipedia:Guild of copyeditors may be able to help.  Done lead fine

   I worked on the lead. How is it now? I made a request at the guild like you suggested, there's a huge backlog there though.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   All online references check out, I assume good faith for off-line sources.

   All references seem to be reliable and thee is no evidence of original research or plagiarism.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   There is a certain amount of repetition as noted above

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   OK, on hold for seven days for the above issues to be addressed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

   I think that sufficient improvements have been made for this article to be listed as a good artcile. Keep it on the copy editor's list as improvements to the prose could still be made, but the article is much clearer now. Aftyer you have had copy-eiting help, you could consider a WP:Peer review, if you wish to improv ethe artcile. Pass as GA. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

   Ok, I'll do that. Thanks.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)