Talk:Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: SkywalkerEccleston (talk · contribs) 14:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Gazingo (talk · contribs) 15:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I intend to review this article.
A few suggestions
- I don't believe in the word "the" in "recognised Florence MacCarthy as The MacCarthy Mor" should be capitalized.
- On the morning of 3 January [O.S. 24 December 1601] 1602 doesn't need both dates, especially with how far into the article it is, just pick one of the calendars and stick to it.
- The sentence "Tyrone ruled Tír Eoghain as a sort of absolute monarchy." is given no elaboration on how Tír Eoghain's government usually worked or how Tyrone was a departure from this, if Tír Eoghain was normally an absolute monarchy I would omit this sentence entirely.
- The phrase "genuine religious conversion" and the debate over Tyrone's political or religious motivations are mentioned several times in the article, I would either reword or remove one of these mentions.
- I don't see the necessity of the "in media" level 3 header in the depictions sections, I would get rid of it and replace the level 4 headers with level 3 ones.
Overall the article was an interesting read and thoroughly sourced, these are the only issues that stood out to me. Once they are fixed I think this is a clear pass. Gazingo (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Gazingo, I have amended the article based on your suggestions.
- I have removed the "in media" heading. However, there is a difference between portraits of Tyrone, some of which are accurate and painted from life, and modern depictions of him in TV shows and movies. Should the "Depictions" section be split up into "Portraits" and "In media"? Or is this unnecessary? Let me know what you think. SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it's necessary to split the depictions section, the resulting sections would both be quite short. The two sections also overlap in time span. The portraits section describes two 19th century paintings and the literature section describe a 19th century poem. A section just on the contemporary portraits would be too short in my opinion. Either way you've solved my main issues with the article so I'm going to pass it. Gazingo (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- All good, thanks Gazingo. SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it's necessary to split the depictions section, the resulting sections would both be quite short. The two sections also overlap in time span. The portraits section describes two 19th century paintings and the literature section describe a 19th century poem. A section just on the contemporary portraits would be too short in my opinion. Either way you've solved my main issues with the article so I'm going to pass it. Gazingo (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)