Talk:Ireland/GA2

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

Reviewer: Jhbuk (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Generally good; I can see there has been a lot of work put into this article, although there are a few things that I think need addressing:
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Looking through the article, there are still some little areas without citations. It's definitely good enough for B- class, but everything needs to be cited for GA (unless it's obvious), and there are several places that clearly need them.  This seems rectifiable, however, particularly judging from the response to my first comments.  Also on that point, there are several paragraphs, such as the first paragraph of "Pre-history and medieval period", where the sources are in the next paragraph (9,10).  It might be worth putting them at the end of that paragraph as well, as it could make it clearer that it is cited, and indeed which cites you're using, although you don't have to do this if you disagree.  However, the references used look good and are well presented.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * See lower section on talk page, although it looks alright.
 * All points in the TODO list are now addressed except for "Communications". --RA (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * I'm reasonably satisfied with this, although there is the odd place that seems a little POV, eg:in "Culture": "the Irish pubs, famous for the conviviality"; "The unique combination"; "the distinctive style" etc.
 * I've addressed this in the Culture section as you describe. Where else is lacking? Obviously, it would take non-Irish eyes to see those places where it might not be so straight forward that we are as brilliant as what we say we are. --RA (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had a look through, and there are no areas that would fail this. Jhbuk (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Good. While not required for GA, images ought to have alt text.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass: Jhbuk2 (talk) 11:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Jhbuk (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Pass: Jhbuk2 (talk) 11:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Jhbuk (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Also: Dead links (ref 79, 144)
 * , though numbering was screwy - no dead links remain. ww2censor (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments:
 * Governance is dealt with under "Political Geography" and really ought to have its own section.
 * ✅: separated into two main sections "Governance" and "Geography". ww2censor (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "History" could probably more logically come as the first section like in many other articles
 * ✅ --RA (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Refs should be separated from a couple of notes using etc (refs 3, 4, 12), as it makes it easier to use.
 * Can you explain this or point to an example or help page. ww2censor (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look at the refs I gave, they are not showing where the information came from, but are providing additional information. On many articles (such as Nimitz class aircraft carrier I've been working on), these are separated from the references.  I just think it makes it easier to use, as it's obvious that there is information, rather than a reference, but it's not too important if you don't want to do it.  To be honest, most of these points are just certain areas that I would improve; the most important thing to do is to make sure that everything has a reference. Jhbuk (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a notes section and was able to add ref 4 (travellers), but ref 3 (population) has multiple uses and I can't figure out how to do that even after reading WP:FN; 12 is a simple ref not a note, so I have not added it. Perhaps someone else can do this. ww2censor (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I meant 49, not 12(?) Don't bother if you're having trouble with it, just concentrate on the referencing. Jhbuk (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Bare url (ref 7)
 * --RA (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Another one in 94 that I missed before as well. Jhbuk (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * - added missing title. ww2censor (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've read through the article again, and I'm nearly prepared to pass it. However, it seems that there are quite a few books cied without page numbers (some don't have ISBNs either, but I'll leave that). Jhbuk (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Refs 18, 19, 63, 89, 90, 91, 131, 133, 166, 168-172, 174, 176 look like they need page numbers (sorry I missed this before). 
 * Replaced refs 18 & 19 with a new one (where I could verify the page number), reduced numbering above accordingly.Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ --RA (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Union with Great Britain" - maybe some more details about what relief was provided by the government
 * ✅ --RA (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Independent Ireland" - Mention the end of the Celtic Tiger, as in the "Economy" section, for neutrality/completeness; possibly some stats about % economic growth during that period, rather than just being 5th largest.
 * ✅ --RA (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)