Talk:Lurgan/GA2

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

 * This article appears to be reasonably close to being a GA; not its not quite there yet, as there are "gaps" in the article. I intend to go through the article in some depth; and will, at the end of this subsection, put the review On Hold.
 * If the article can be brought up to standard within a reasonable time (I'm thinking in terms of a week or so) then the article could make GA this time round.


 * WP:Lead -
 * I tend to review the Lead last and will do so there. However, the lead is intended to both introduce the main article and provide a summary of the main points.


 * History -
 * This section has a few too many "gaps".
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 08:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC) - This sentence aught to have a citation: "The McCanns were sept of the O'Neills and Lords of Clanbrassil prior to the Plantation of Ulster period in the early 17th century."
 * Fixed --Eamonnca1 (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC) - The lead has the comment (a "tease" - since it's not disussed) a typical Plantation of Ulster settlement and the wikilink is copied in the 1st paragraph of History.
 * Took out the duplicate wikilink but I'm not sure what you mean by 'tease'. Should we expand more on the plantation and the kind of town planning they used? --Eamonnca1 (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What I mean by "tease" is that the introduction has something that does not appear in the article. Look at the sequence: i.e. 1610 lands given to English Lord, 1641 castle burnt down, linen industry in 17th century and beyond, 1960s new town; also look at the populations statistics population doubled from ~ 3,000 c 1850 to > 7,000 c 1861, etc; but there is no mention whatsoever of any houses being built until about 1965. Pyrotec (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed (I think) --Eamonnca1 (talk) 05:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 08:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC) - The 2nd para hints that possibly prior to 1610 there was nothing on the land, but "hints" do not make Good Articles.
 * Fixed (I think) --Eamonnca1 (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 07:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC) - Brownlow's castle and bawn were destroyed in 1641, fair enough but the article does not mention their construction.
 * Fixed --Eamonnca1 (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 07:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC) - There is no mention of the Plantation of Ulster settlement in respect of this locality
 * Not sure what you mean. Right now it just says that it was settled during the time of the plantation. Should we say something spelling out that the area was colonised as an actual part of the plantation? --Eamonnca1 (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean that there is no mention of any houses, roads, schools, churches, town halls being built. Town planning if you prefer. Pyrotec (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed, (I think) --Eamonnca1 (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The "linen industry which peaked in the town in the late 17th century". OK, but there is no mention of the construction of the town.
 * Fixed --Eamonnca1 (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No further mention of the town occurs until the 1960s. What happened in the preceding quarter of a millennium?
 * Er, not much that I'm aware of, to be quite honest. Would a general note about how the town continued to grow be sufficient? --Eamonnca1 (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I've added a note about how the town continued to grow. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 05:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * the last sentence about the textile industry aught to have a citation.
 * Fixed --Eamonnca1 (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The Troubles -
 * Appears to be OK.


 * Economy -
 * The 18,000 figure looks a bit strange when compared against the figures given in the Historical population table as they don't exceed 12,00 in the 19th century, but it appears fairly consistent consistent with citation 10. Some comment is needed.
 * I've modified it thus: "...and is said to have employed as many as 18,000 handloom weavers at the end of the 19th century, a figure significantly higher than the town's resident population at the time." This implies that the figure might be incorrect or that workers commuted from out of town (which is a bit unlikely in those days I know). Hopefully this is enough to redress the issue. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The statement that textiles was a major employment until 1990s/2000s aught to be cited.
 * Fixed --Eamonnca1 (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 08:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC) - The "so-called centre" appears to be a WP:POV.
 * Fixed --Eamonnca1 (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Governance -
 * Appears to be OK.

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Culture and community & Media -
 * These appear to be OK.


 * Geography -
 * Appears to be OK.

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 08:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I'm putting the review On Hold. The article has been improved sufficiently to make GA, but for that to happen a number of unreferenced statements need citations - in particular an editor seems to have queried the statment from the 2001 census of 25,048. Pyrotec (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There might be some more discussion on this down below, but for now I think that this issue is resolved with a fairly reliable citation. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Overall Summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 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:

The article has been sufficiently improved during the period of the review; it is now compliant, so I'm awarding GA-status. Congratulations on your work in improving this article. Pyrotec (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)