Talk:Battle of Dun Nechtain/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and I have also appended a list of other comments which, whilst they are not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion
There is one major problem preventing promotion: the lead is in a bad shape. The lead should introduce the article in no less than two paragraphs and no more than four, providing brief summaries background, description of the event and the aftermath, highlighting the particularly notable points about this particular engagement. At the moment it doesn't do this, focusing instead on the paucity of information, not the information that is available.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC) I have added one tag in a position I think requires one.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): 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.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * It is stable.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Other comments
(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)
 * Remember that wikipedia is an entry level resource, and so some people reading it will not know who Bede and the other chroniclers/historians are - briefly introduce them (i.e. antiquarian George Chalmers).
 * I noticed one or two references in the background section that come in the middle of sentences rather than after punctuation. This can make the prose harder to read, and I recommend relocating them after punctuation.


 * Hi Jackyd. I have addressed the points you made and rectified a couple of other minor errors. Let me know what you think, if there are any other issues you spot. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 22:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent work, I have no qualms about passing the article now, congratulations. I have made a couple of minor formatting changes myself and there is one additional point to consider: the link to Irish in the lead goes to a disambiguation page - is there an article on Brega? Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers, thanks for reviewing it! Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)