Talk:Urquhart Castle/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 18:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The lead is a bit short for an article of this length. Particularly, I see nothing in the lead that summarizes the information from the Description section and its subsections.

Lead, "Urquhart played its role in" -> "played a role in"?

The early castle, "On his death" I'm assuming you mean de Lundin's death, but it would be good to make this explicit.

The early castle, "Although it is clear that a castle existed by this time," How is it clear? What makes it clear if the first "reliable" references are from later?

The early castle, "Sir William fitz Warin was appointed constable for the English," Does this mean he was put in charge of the castle?

The early castle, "Urquhart was controlled by the Scots again in 1298," How was it controlled? How did they capture it?

The early castle, "he too headed up" - "headed up" is a bit colloquial. Perhaps "travelled up"?

Nether Bailey, "contained a hall at first floor," I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean.

Upper Bailey, "is a doocot" This is linked to Dovecote - not sure if it's a typo or an alternate spelling?
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
File:Columba at Bridei's fort.jpg uses an author life + 70 years tag, but does not give a death date for the author. It could probably instead use a pre-1923 publication tag, although I'm not 100% sure on this.

Text should not be sandwiched between images, as it is at the beginning of the History section and the Nether Bailey section.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Overall, quite nicely written. A few minor issues with prose and a couple of image niggles. Once these are addressed, I think the article should be good to go for GA status. For now, I'm placing the review on hold. Dana boomer (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review Dana. I'll make a start on the necessary changes today. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have pudged up the lead a bit and divided into a couple of paragraphs. I've also been through the list of prose comments and tried to clarify these, hopefully for the better. For the images, I binned the Columba picture as it isn't massively relevant, and rearranged those in the last section (discovering both {{annotated image}} and {{multiple images}} in the process, handy). If you have any further suggestions for improvement please let me know. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good, so I am now passing the article to GA status. Especially nice work on the images - that is a very nice use of the multiple images template! Dana boomer (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks indeed for your review and kind comments! Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]