Talk:Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sotakeit (talk · contribs) 21:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Johannes Schade! I've put this GA review on hold for the moment to give you chance to correct some clear citation issues. As per WP:GAFAIL, any articles with extant cleanup banners qualify for immediate failure. Although in areas the article is very well cited, there are still quite a few statements missing citations. If you could correct this, I'll continue with the review. Let me know if you have any questions in the meantime. Sotakeit (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear Sotakeit. Thank you very much for taking on this review. Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty is my first GA nomination. I see that you have created 233 pages, of which 34 articles. I looked at Saint-Sulpice, Paris, which is very nice and particularly well-illustrated. I am still a bit of a novice. I read up in the instructions and see that "articles with cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid" should be failed immediately. Thank you for rather putting this review on hold. I feel that it is not up to me to remove the cleanup banner as I am evidently biased. I must admit that I do not see where the "missing citations" should be. Could you eventually add some "Citation needed" maintenance tags to guide me? I hope to collaborate well with you and learn a lot. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 08:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear Sotakeit. A week is gone. I have added 36 citations. I am not sure that this has fixed the issue as in the process I also added more content and the citation density (18 words/citation) stayed the same. What do you think? With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay . Life getting in the way. I've removed the hold tag and hopefully I'll get through this this evening or tomorrow. On a first glance it's a good article, so I don't think there is likely to be many suggestions. Will update you ASAP. Sotakeit (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for baring with me. Overall I think thing the article is good. With some tweaking in areas, I think it would pass on all six criteria. I made some minor changes with language, there being quite a few examples of what I think would be considered informal English. I've made some suggestions below that would need addressing. Sotakeit (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear Sotakeit. I am glad to hear from you. I do not seem to find citations for the 6 statements you mention. (1 & 2)I have deleted the first two. Nothing is known and things could perhaps be different from what I imagined. (3) The 3rd "Sir Donough, as an Irish Catholic, therefore expected to see the graces confirmed in this parliament in which he was sitting." I wonder whether it really needs a citation. (4) I reformulated I think it should be understandable and obvious without another citation. (5) This is not a sentence I wrote. I am still looking for where it came from. (5) Lieutenants could leave Ireland and appoint a Deputy who stood in for them. — You find the term "grace" old-fashioned. However, this is the name used by the historians. I found, however, that Wikipedia has an article The Graces (Ireland), which I had overlooked, so I reworded a bit and linked to this article. — I changed reign to tenure, the Infobox seems to tolerate this. — Mountgarret had become the President of the Confederacy. I reworded to make this clear. That's it for today. With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear Sotakeit. I deleted the sentence about knighthood being a bonus, but kept the Efn. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear Sotakeit. I have doubts about the usefulness of the two tables of sessions. Perhaps I should throw them out. I replaced all 10-digit ISBNs with 13-digit ISBNs in the sources. I added citations for the two small family trees, which did not have any up-to-now, but I wonder what the right way is to provide verifiability for a family tree. User Jdorney has given me a citation for Cromwell "His aims were avenging ...". Unluckily, that source is not accessible online.
 * Dear Sotakeit: I added an anchor to link to for the issue-link in the Infobox. Also a citation for Brian Boru.
 * Dear Sotakeit. I added the citation that you demanded (1.A.1.6) showing that the Lord Lieutenant had the right to appoint a Deputy under him.
 * We are going nowhere. I want to withdraw the nomination. Please, just fail the GA. I will then restart with a different reviewer.
 * I consider you have withdrawn from this review. Not knowing why you do not respond, I thank you for your efforts and hold you are well. I will follow the instructions under "If the reviewer withdraws" and open GA2, hoping to get a new reviewer soon. Johannes Schade (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * 1) I've removed the citation banner as, on the whole, the article is well sourced. There are still a few statements that I think need to be referenced:
 * 2) "She must have converted to Catholicism to do so."
 * 3) "The subsidiary title, Baron Blarney, was certainly meant as a courtesy title for Donough MacCarty, but apparently he never used the name."
 * 4) "Sir Donough, as an Irish Catholic, therefore expected to see the graces confirmed in this parliament in which he was sitting."
 * 5) "... who was however powerless in Confederate territory."
 * 6) "His aims were avenging the uprising of 1641, confiscating enough Irish Catholic-owned land to pay off some of the Parliament's debts, and eliminating a dangerous outpost of royalism."
 * 7) "...and therefore could now appoint a deputy under him."
 * 8) The use of "reign" in the infobox doesn't quite fit here. Perhaps "tenure", as used here, is a better option?
 * 9) I'm unsure of the meaning of the use of "graces" here, and subsequently throughout this paragraph. I'm not sure this is standard English anymore: "King Charles I had let know in 1626 that he was ready to grant "graces" to the Irish Catholics against payment". Maybe an explanation or a synonym?
 * 10) Some clarification needed here I suspect: "...at the capital he was received by President Mountgarret". President of what? Mountgarret is mentioned previously without the title.
 * 11) There are nine uses of the word "probably". I would suggest using some synonyms or alternatives. "Likely" perhaps?
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is there a better way of phrasing "Some said that Muskerry avoided...". Who said this? See MOS:WEASEL.
 * 2) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) This strikes me as original research: "Knighthood seems to still have been considered a bonus for the job". Do you have a reference to support this?
 * 2) 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: