Talk:Wales/GA2

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

Reviewer: Catfish Jim   &#38; the soapdish  10:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article shortly. Catfish Jim  &#38; the soapdish  11:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

General comments:

By and large an enjoyable and informative read. Article stability is open to question, but most recent edits have been fairly minor rewording and clarification. Some aspects need to be addressed, largely to do with referencing:


 * The lead section in its current state does not follow Manual of Style (lead section). It should function to provide an introduction and overview of the main article, summarising its most important aspects.


 * In 'Prehistoric origins' it is stated, "[...]and built cromlechs such as Pentre Ifan, Bryn Celli Ddu and Parc Cwm long cairn between about 5,500 BP and 5,800 BP, about 1,000 to 1,300 years before either Stonehenge or the Great Pyramid of Giza was completed." This statement falls foul of WP:SYN as none of the references give those comparisons with Stonehenge or Giza. My suggestion would be to simply drop the comparison.
 * ✅ diff Daicaregos (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * In 'Post-Roman era' it is stated, "[...]the expansion of the Anglo-Saxons into Wales may have been halted by the victory of the British leader Arthur at Badon Hill[...]" I'm not comfortable with this treatment of Arthur as a historical figure, given the general lack of reliable historical evidence for him.
 * It would be neglectful for the Wales article not to mention Arthur. How about: "Archaeological evidence, in the Low Countries and what was to become England, shows early Anglo-Saxon migration to Great Britain reversed between 500 to 550, which concurs with Frankish chronicles. John Davies notes this as consistent with the British victory at Badon Hill, attributed to Arthur by Nennius and Gildas . " Daicaregos (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think Gildas explicitly names Arthur (Nennius does), but otherwise that would be perfect. Catfish Jim   &#38; the soapdish  15:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite so. Gildas refers to a great victory won by the Britons at Mons Badonicus. ✅ diff Daicaregos (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * A reference is needed for the breakdown of the alliance between Anarawd and the Northumbrian Norse and the subsequent pact with Alfred.
 * ✅ diffs Daicaregos (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * In 'Medieval Wales', there are insufficient references to support the paragraph starting "The Aberffraw dynasty would surge to pre-eminence [...]"
 * ✅ diff, diff & diff Daicaregos (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * In 'Modern Wales', more references are needed in the paragraph dealing with the rise of nationalism and Plaid Cymru. A BBC report of an apology by Liverpool City Council for the flooding of Capel Celyn is not sufficient to cover this important topic.
 * ✅ Cites added, could this be challenged if it is felt the cites are not yet adequate. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Catfish Jim   &#38; the soapdish  23:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Sport' and 'Media' both need the referencing tightened up.
 * Sport ✅, nine cites added, hopefully that is enough. FruitMonkey (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Media ✅ diffs (Media section only, of course) Daicaregos (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * In 'Demographics' references are needed to cover Eastern European migration.
 * ✅ Cites given for European migration in the early 21st century. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * More references are needed in 'Mythology'... specific texts are mentioned but not cited correctly.
 * ✅ diffs Daicaregos (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Catfish Jim   &#38; the soapdish  13:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * All my concerns have been addressed, and with the lead section in User:Daicaregos/sandbox, it would easily qualify for GA status. Catfish Jim   &#38; the soapdish  15:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm putting the article on hold for another seven days. This is to allow time to develop a stable lead section which every one is happy with. Catfish Jim  &#38; the soapdish  14:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Congratulations... passed GA... I enjoyed reading and reviewing it, thanks Catfish Jim   &#38; the soapdish  21:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)