Talk:Clan Macfie/GA2

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Note: the main contributing editor, Celtus, has retired. I'll do my best to fill in. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 10:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Noted. Sorry, but it is now likely to be Friday or Saturday before comments start to appear from me. Pyrotec (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * no rush, my editing is sporadic so may also have delays. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 09:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Inital comments
By now I have a quick read through of the article. I looks to be at or about GA level, so I will not be "quick failing" it.

I'm now going to work my way through the article in more detail and just note any "problems" that I see, starting from the first section through to the end; and then do the WP:Lead last. This may take a couple of days: but if a don't find any problems in a particular section/subsection I might not make any comments on it here. I will produce an overall summary at the end to cover everything. Pyrotec (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of the problems appear to be farily "trival" in the individual effort needed, but I suspect that there will a quite a few. Pyrotec (talk) 14:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * History -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC) - The first paragraph contains a mixture of one direct quotation by and summaries of the writings of W. F. Skene: which appear to be covered by ref 5 (used once in that paragraph). The direct quotation needs its own citation.
 * Done. Czar Brodie (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ref 10 is quoted as a web page, but is actually a book that is out of copyright. Its not properly cited, i.e there is no acknowledgment of the author, publisher, etc. I suggest that you use cite book and include the current link as "|url=".
 * Done; Note the web version appears to be a copy of This version (1934) from an original book published (written?) circa 1695, copy found here. Czar Brodie (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not quite. Its now in References; and I'm happy with that. The original citation (10) has not changed, i.e. "10. a b A Description of the Western Isles of Scotland (circa 1695). http://www.appins.org/martin.htm. Retrieved 28 August 2007." It either need to be expanded to a full reference or made into a Harvnb reference, such as (11). Pyrotec (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Fall of the clan, Macphee the outlaw -
 * These subsections look OK.

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The modern clan -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC) - In general this subsection is compliant, however both references 36 and 37 are flagged up as dead links, so are not WP:verifiable. It's some time since they were accessed and there seems to have been some "link rot". Pyrotec (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Relinked (and re reference) to new sites. Plenty of clan sites dealing with the same subject. Czar Brodie (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the detail, I took a day off. Pyrotec (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Clan profile, Associated clans and names & WP:Lead -
 * These three sections look OK.

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Thanks for resolving my "actions" promply and congratulations on acheiving GA. Pyrotec (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reviewing the article and giving GA status. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)