Wikipedia:Peer review/The Tale of Mac Da Thó's Pig/archive1

The Tale of Mac Da Thó's Pig
This peer review discussion has been closed. This is an article on an important piece of medieval Irish literature, which I started about a month ago. I've listed it for peer review because I'd like any opinions on what more needs to be done to bring it to FA.

Thanks, Grimhelm (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: This article is worthy of FA status in my opinion. No disambiguations, no dead links. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: we don't do "support" or "oppose" here; this is Peer Review, in which articles are subject to positive critical comments from editors, as a stage in the journey towards GA or FA. Perhaps you would care to review the whole article in this way? Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ooops!, my mistake, seems dumb, but I thought the nominator had gone to FAC. I reviewed it at GAN and found no unrectified faults there. 00:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a most interesting article and one that I enjoyed reading. My main concern is that it relies so heavily on three sources, particularly Chadwick. It may be that no other reliable sources exist, but I have doubts. Why only three sources? Why no scholarly articles published in journals? Have no serious disagreements about interpretation of the tale arisen among scholars?

Sources and composition
 * "The scene of the story, and its familiarity with the area of modern County Kildare," - Since the story can't be familiar with geography (though the author can), perhaps "The scene of the story, and details about the area of modern County Kildare,"


 * "though it appears that the south-west of Ireland was also not unknown to the author" - Maybe "was also known to the author" rather than the double negative?

Plot
 * "an animal which had been nourished by 60 milch cows for seven years and which had 40 oxen spread across it for its enormous size" - I'm not sure how to interpret "had 40 oxen spread across it for its enormous size"? Does this mean that the pig was as wide as 40 oxen side-by-side? Or as long as 40 oxen end-to-end? Or is this a volume comparison? Would something like "and which was as big as 40 oxen" be more clear?


 * "The pig immediately attracts the attention of the Ulaid and Connachta, who must decide over how it is to be divided up" - Tighten to "The pig attracts the attention of the Ulaid and Connachta, who must decide how to divide it"?


 * "It is agreed that the warriors shall challenge each other to boast their past exploits in battle." - How about "The warriors agree to a boasting contest about their past exploits in battle"?


 * "Cet answered 'One moment Cet, that I may speak with you'. - Should that be "One moment Lóegure... "?

Dindsenchas


 * Since this section is so short, I'd either merge it with the "Plot" section or expand it by including other examples of dindsenchas and more fully explain where in Ireland this valley lies (the southeast), and where the river empties into the sea. A short explanation of the term, dindsenchas, would also be helpful. Readers will need to know what it means, and, although the link is fine, they shouldn't have to navigate elsewhere for this essential bit of information.

Narrative style
 * This subsection depends solely on a single source, apparently. It would be stronger if you could find other sources who either agree or disagree with Chadwick on at least some points and who discuss the style from different points of view. Is Chadwick the only critic who has published anything about the narrative style of this tale?


 * "In spite of the literary finish of the surviving written versions... " - Tighten by using "Despite" instead of "in spite of"?

Theme and antiquity
 * This subsection relies heavily on Chadwick and summarizes her interpretation; is hers the only reliable interpretation per WP:RS?


 * "yet never once mentions Cúchulainn" - I think this is the first mention of Cúchulainn in the article. If so, it should probably be linked. Also, has any critic suggested any reason other than the timeline that Cúchulainn might have been omitted?

Associated traditions
 * "Clearly the tradition predates our oldest surviving copy, that of the Book of Leinster." - If it's clear, there's no need to say "clearly". Also, the Manual of Style advises against using the first-person "our" except in direct quotes because it appears to be self-referential (Wikipedia as "we"). These two errors may stem from mirroring Chadwick's language too closely.


 * "The explanation in prose and verse of "the plain of Léna" is as imaginative as could be expected from medieval etymologies" - This covers so much ground, it's almost certainly one critic's opinion; the sentence is sourced to Thurneysen, but the citation might only cover the second half of the sentence, "in reality, mag léna simply means "plain of meadows". In any case, a claim like this seems too sweeping for an encyclopedia unless it's more directly attributed to someone. Something like "In Turneysen's opinion, the explanation in prose and verse is as imaginative as could be expected from medieval etymologies" would make it more clear that Wikipedia is not presenting Thurneysen's interpretation as indisputable fact.

I hope these comments prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)