Talk:The Tale of Mac Da Thó's Pig/GA1

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: Fixed 2 dabs. 

Linkrot: No dead links found. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "[I]n the few remarks made by Mac Da Thó to his visitors, all his previous train of though, all his cunning and address, are suggested in a few brief words intended by him to hide his true designs from his guests, while suggesting to ourselves his hidden intention." Is though a typo? I would have assumed thought! ✅
 * The tale was apparently also popular in later times, ...was also apparently... would read better. ✅
 * The red wikilink to Mag nAilbi should be added to the first instance of this place name a few lines above. ✅
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Assume good faith for all offline sources.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Thorough, clear and not unnecessarily detailed.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 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):
 * Correctly tagged, captioned and licensed.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This is very good, just a few minor points to be addressed. On hold for seven days. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC) ✅
 * Good work, an excellent and interesting article, well worthy of GA status. I suggest you get a peer review and then consider going to to WP:FAC. Passing as GA. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is very good, just a few minor points to be addressed. On hold for seven days. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC) ✅
 * Good work, an excellent and interesting article, well worthy of GA status. I suggest you get a peer review and then consider going to to WP:FAC. Passing as GA. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that has to be my least troublesome GA nomination on record. Minor editorial fixes here per above. "Though" was indeed a typo for "thought". Thanks for the review. --Grimhelm (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)