Wikipedia

Talk:Dundalk/Archive 1

< Talk:Dundalk
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Sexitoni in topic GA Review
Archive 1

Untitled

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Article needs cleaned up a bit. Hopefully I'll get a chance to do so soon. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 15:39, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

someone has a very dundalkish view of the world... Djegan 21:49, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is this really necessary?

A 80 kilometre (50 mile) radius brings in Ireland’s two main cities, Dublin and Belfast, increasing the catchment to in excess of 3 million

So what? take any arbitrary point on the map of Ireland, draw a 50 mile radius and bingo you'll have a "catchment area" of a million or so. I somehow doubt that it brings a warm glow to Dubliners and Belfast-ers to know that they are in Dundalk's "catchment" area!Mcgahon 09:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, the external website linked from the infobox isn't quite right. That's a link to Dundalk Town Council's site (which is already linked at the bottom) It deals mainly with administrative matters, planning applications etc. and wouldn't be a particularly useful site for anyone looking for, say, tourist information or more on Dundalk's historyMcgahon 09:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

On the first issue (catchment) you have a point, it sounds like an advert. On the second (website), of anything the councils website is the best option as if we were to allow anything else then their would, undoubtably, be a daily change to someones blog/b&b/cornershop/church/community/... website to get primary attention. Council websites are a first good call. Djegan 18:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I suppose my point was that the council's info is already linked below the main article. I don't mean to suggest that the infobox link be replaced by another website, but it does look like it's some sort of official website of dundalk, when it is more concerned with dry administrative matters. I'll edit the "catchment area" bit and leave the infobox for now, but if dundalk town council's site is going to remain in the infobox, surely it should be removed from the externa links below the main article?Mcgahon 14:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, just looking at that catchment area business again, even the first bit's not quite right. The actual catchment area of Dundalk would be the North Louth, South Armagh area, possibly at a stretch extending to a bit of East Co. Monaghan and Cavan - people from Carrickmacross and Castleblayney do some business and shopping in Dundalk. 30 miles would bring in Newry and Drogheda which would be towns/cities of equivalent size to Dundalk with their own catchment areas. I don't have any stats to hand, but the apppropriate catchment area for Dundalk would probably be more like a 15 mile radius and would be a good bit under 100,000Mcgahon 14:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Dundalk is also a town in Maryland, near Baltimore. It was named so because the founding father in America, McShane, was originally from Dundalk Ireland.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.55.37.155 (talk • contribs) .

Thats mentioned on the Dundalk, Maryland article. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is there a link to the company Digiweb under Services? It's a completely commercial company, not municipal or state-sponsored. This page shouldn't be a business directory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.111.101 (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What are people from Dundalk called

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Dundalkers? Dundalkians? please shed some light. Possibly Dundalkish?

People from Dundalk are called: "People from Dundalk". (Or by their first names if you are on speaking terms :).
If someone put a gun to your head and asked you to apply a one-word label to a person from Dundalk, then "Dundalker" would probably be the safest bet. However, it's not a term that is in common use. Or, at least, not as naturally understood as Corkonian or Dubliner or NewYorker or Manchunian or similar.
"Dundalker" definitely ISN'T a common use term that would find it's way here for example.
What's wrong with "person from Dundalk" anyway? Why the need to apply a one word label? Not everywhere has "one word labels" for it's inhabitants. People from Belfast don't have a label. Nor those from Cardiff. Or those from Amsterdam. Etc. Etc. Guliolopez 17:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It was not my intention to cause offence, I merely did not know the answer to this query. I have relatives in Dundalk and did know what the name for someone from there was. Sorry if you thought I was being offence towards people from Dundalk.Quick Reference 08:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Education

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This section contains a list of primary and secondary schools. Are any of these notable? If not remove is advised. Djegan 21:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC) There is a school missing from the list of primary schools - St Francis National School, established 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.17.165.66 (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Town Size

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

The new information and citation provided both contradict the given information and misrepresent the information given as well. First of the citation was switched from a primary source, the cso data for the 2006 census, to an secondary source in which the author does not even cite where he has obtained his information, though this information would seem to be based upon the census information it seems to be more based upon estimates from some other source. Also the information presented in the secondary source does not work with was is stated in the text. The article states that "Within legally defined boundaries, Dundalk has a population of 29,037 inhabitants", where as the population in the new source has Dundalk having 33,730 inhabitants. If one were to look as the cso information it would see that within the legally defined boundaries Dundalk, as of the 2006 census, does have a population of 29,037, where as the population of the town and it's surrounding environs, which would be considered outside of the legally defined boundaries would be, based upon the cso data, 35,085. Where the new source gets it's 33,730 number from is well pretty much a mystery. As for Drogheda, it's town population, within it's boundaries, is 28,973, and with it's environs outside of it's boundaries included it would be 35,096, the environs of Drogheda extend into both Counties Louth and Meath. The new source list as having a population 34,336 inhabitants. Now based upon the current stated text, Dundalk would be the larger of the two being that it has population of 29,037 compared to 28,973 for Drogheda within their respective legally defined boundaries. Where as if the environs were included, which are outside of the legally defined boundaries of the respective towns, then Drogheda would be considered the larger with 35,096 compared to 35,085. So either way what is current stated in the article does not work with the numbers. So first off the source needs to be changed back to the cso, being that is is a primary and verifiable source, as opposed to about.com. Second either the information presented need s to be revered back to it's previous statement, of Dundalk being the larger based upon the legally defined boundaries or that it needs to be restated to say that Drogheda is the larger based upon legally defined boundaries and the surrounding environs. Otherwise the information being presented, while it would not be picked up on by the average person, would still be false and misleading. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 21:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

In terms of town size "legally defined boundaries" doesn't mean very much and the CSO stats tend to recognise this. Usually the "legal boundary" only means a Town Council or other Local Authority area; not by any means the same thing as a town or city. Sarah777 (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I would have to disagree with you on that one. The CSO stats, in general don't tend to place an emphasis on one stat as oppose to the other, however while they do tend to favor the listing in order by total population (which they define as the population of the town proper, he legally defined boundary, with that of it's suburbs and environs), it does differentiate between the total population, the population within the legally defined boundary, and the population of the suburbs and environs only (as seen on pg 119 of the report "Table 7: Persons in each town of 1,500 population and over, distinguishing those within legally defined boundaries and in suburbs or environs, 2002 and 2006". And whether or not this "mean very much" is subject to another debate altogether. Anyhow your does not address the issues present in the articles, this one and the one on Drogheda, those being.
  • The replacement of a primary source with a secondary source with no source for it's information.
  • The current contradiction of this statement: legally defined boundaries, Dundalk is the second largest town in Ireland with a population of 29,037 inhabitants, Drogheda is the largest., the contradiction being with the population number, the source number, and the statement. The previous version was correct based upon the statistical information giving in the cso report.
--Boothy443 | trácht ar 02:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any need for the paragraph about the population of the town at all, the information is clearly accessible in the infobox. The entire article needs quite a bit of work, and should be comparable to the - largely - clear and well written pieces on Galway, Waterford, Kilkenny and so on. Anyone willing to help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belacqua Shuah (talk • contribs) 17:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The article could probably do with a total rewrite and/or restructuring. I'd be very much willing to help. Fribbler (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

John Phillip Holland didn't invent the submarine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.160.171 (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

History section

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've restored this as I'm pretty sure it's not a copyright violation, i.e. it's not copied from here. That page is "© 2010 Dundalk Chamber of Commerce" and the site looks pretty new. The page here is much older than that, and further if you check this page's revision history you can see previous revisions of this section and the edits that went into it. The dundalk.ie page seems simply to be a copy of a relatively recent revision. It seems a shame to undo all of the IP editors work, but there is nothing wrong with the section that is there now. --JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's weird - so they copied from here not the other way around? I think that some of my text was an improvement stylistically on what was there before, so I've restored a few of the changes that I made. Hope this is OK. - Dundalker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.137.168.69 (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Their copying it is not at all surprising: technically they should say where they got it from, not put their own © on it, but no-one is going to sue them. Easier than researching it and writing it themselves, and it happens a lot. The danger in editing it because you think it was copied is the suggestion that material is copied is quite a serious one, and the danger is in your rush to 'fix' it you'll lose the work of many editors and the consensus previously arrived at on the page. But editing normally is not a problem - though you should say in your edit summaries what you're doing whenever editing an article.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Joke?

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article is bad beyond belief! Sarah777 (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? Hohenloh + 14:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dundalk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Dundalk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Dundalk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dundalk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dundalk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Full rewrite and Good Article nomination

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Using the style of Bath, Somerset and Dundalk F.C., the article has been reorganised, all paragraphs have appropriate citations, dead links and webarchive links removed or replaced. Opinions have been rewritten or quoted as opinions. User:Sexitoni 19:30, 8 September 2020

Hi. while there has been a significant improvement in recent weeks and months (kudos), there would seem to be more to do before GA is met. In terms of:
  • References, for example, there are at least a half-dozen that seem to reference Facebook as a source. Which doesn't meet WP:RS. By some margin.
  • Embedded lists, I'm personally unsure about the "some places 15km from the subject" list in the middle. While I would question the need for a large disruptive/embedded "table of places" in the middle of the article at the best of times, the inclusion criteria selected by some editor some time ago ("15km from the subject") seems indiscriminate. And unqualified. Why that distance? How is it measured? Why include places that are demonstrably in another town, and include them as if they are in this one? In my view, if a table is required, then ideally it would be limited to sites which are actually within the scope of the article (the town). And, if "other significantly notable places nearby" are to be included, then they could be summarised. Ideally in prose. Rather than a directory of random things. Where the reason for their inclusion can be explained to the reader. Otherwise, while I appreciate that we've used bracketed qualifiers to communicate to the reader where the site actually is, that we have to do that at all would suggestion that something's not quite right....
Otherwise this is well on its way to (re)gaining its GA status. Guliolopez (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I would note that the census area for Dundalk is (presumably) the inclusion criteria used for other parts of the article (like the demographics tables/etc). It broadly follows the outline of the M1/N1 (to the east) and the coastline (to the west). While a census area (relating to people) is perhaps not ideal to use as a boundary/criteria for "sites of interest" (relating to places), it is at least a little less arbitrary than what we have today. Which I can only describe as "some things that within 15km (except when they are not), including things that are actually in other places entirely (and already covered in the articles on those places)". Guliolopez (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Thank you, I probably should have waited until you posted before starting the cleanup as a result of your suggestions!
    • I was trying to work around things that were already there in terms of fixing language and finding citations. I should be able to find media references in the newspaper archives, otherwise I'll just remove it probably doesn't add to the article anyway.
    • My preference would be to remove the 'places of interest' list and replace it with 'architecture' and 'public spaces' prose sub-sections. Again,. I was trying to work with what was there. In terms of what should and shouldn't be included from a geographic location perspective, I'll use the census boundaries, then if I use the Dundalk Municipal District, as that's the legal entity under the local government act of 2014. I'll highlight that where necessary.
    • Again, thank you. Always appreciate when someone donates their time.
    • sexitoni (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
This is an excellent rewrite of Dundalk and merits at least Good Article status. I don't have much to add to what's already been said above. Regarding references, you might be interested in Help:Shortened footnotes. For this article I believe that shortened footnotes could be used for references to the D'Alton book (8 or 9 pages referenced) and to the Gosling paper (4 pages referenced). Declangi (talk) 09:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Looks great! Declangi (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Me again Sexitoni. I note that you are continuing with the proposed improvements. Which is great. I would note however that, while the GA criteria expects that a good article be supported by relevant media, the criteria expects that the layout (including the image layouts) follow the manual of style. Many of the images in the article do not currently follow the MOS. In particular MOS:IMGSIZE. Which expects that "except with very good reason, a fixed width in pixels (e.g. 17px) should not be specified [..as..] this ignores the user's base width setting". Perhaps it's been done this way to fit in lots and lots of supporting images, but most (if not all) of the images here have a fixed width. Which, probably shouldn't be set, and (if a fixed width is required in exceptional circumstances) probably shouldn't be set so significantly below the standard. Most of the images look like postage stamps. They shouldn't. Guliolopez (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, will review. Sexitoni (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Dundalk/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kncny11 (talk · contribs) 22:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


I think this article has been waiting long enough to get its review! Any section that I marked with a   Working tag means that I haven't finished combing through it yet, but feel free to start making changes as soon as you see them listed! Kncny11 (shoot) 22:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose ( ) 1b. MoS ( ) 2a. ref layout ( ) 2b. cites WP:RS ( ) 2c. no WP:OR ( ) 2d. no WP:CV ( )
3a. broadness ( ) 3b. focus ( ) 4. neutral ( ) 5. stable ( ) 6a. free or tagged images ( ) 6b. pics relevant ( )
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked   are unassessed

Infobox and lede

  • I will look through this more closely later, but anything written in the lede must also appear in the body

  Working

Early history

  • "Following the end of the last Ice Age" should go after "archaeological studies at Rockmarshall indicate that", because otherwise the sentence structure implies that the studies were carried out after the Ice Age (which is technically true, I guess)
  • "A wedge-shaped gallery grave known as the 'Giant's Grave' is nearby."
  • Comma after "The legends of Cú Chulainn"
  • "Clochafarmore (a menhir), which is the stone Cú Chulainn" → "Clochafarmore, the menhir that Cú Chulainn"
  • Annals of the Four Masters should be italicized
  • Faughart is introduced in the third para but not formally linked and explained until the fifth
  • "unhistorical" → "ahistorical"
  • "Evidence of early Christian settlements are to be found in the high concentration of souterrains in north Louth, which date from early Christian Ireland." → "Evidence of settlements from early Christian Ireland..." to reduce repetition of "early Christian"
  • Pipe raid to Raid (military)
  • WL the first instances of County Down and County Antrim
  • "separate to" → "separate from"
  • WL Moyry Pass
  • WL relic
  • This section should really be titled Early history and legend
    • All changes made - thank you for taking on the review User:Sexitoni 23:260, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Middle Ages

  • Pipe Norman to Normans
  • Italicize both Annals of the Four Masters and Annals of Tigernach
  • "which were both written hundreds of years after"

  Working

English rule

  Working

After the Acts of Union

  Working

Independence

  Working

Border town

  Working

21st century

  • WL peace dividend
  • "and in the first decade of the new millennium the remaining shoe factory, the two Diageo-owned breweries, and the Carroll's tobacco factory were among a number of factories to close—finally severing the links to the town's industrial past." → "and, within years, a number of factories began to close, severing the town's links to its industrial past."
  • "By 2012, the town was being painted as one of Ireland's "most deprived areas" after the global downturn following the Financial crisis of 2007–2008." → "Following the global economic downturn caused by the financial crisis of 2007–2008, a 2012 report from economist Pat McArdle named Dundalk "the most deprived Border town in the Republic"."

  Working

Geography

  Working

Demography

  Working

Politics and government

  Working

Architecture

  Working

Public spaces

  • use {{convert}} to automatically show both hectares and acres

  Working

Industry

  Working

Tourism

  • "The border region has not seen the same level of tourism as Dublin or the Atlantic coast regions historically, primarily as a result of the Troubles and an associated lack of marketing." → "Historically, Dundalk has not seen the same level of tourism as Dublin or the Atlantic coast regions of Ireland, which is primarily the results of the Troubles and an associated lack of marketing."
  • Expand on why this changed in the mid-1990s
  • I'd like some specification on what "Ireland's Ancient East" means (see here
  • Same with "Land of Legends", what exactly is the marketing campaign?
  • Beyond the fact that it's not a proper inline citation, and that Tripadvisor isn't exactly a reliable source, the information on airports belongs in "transport".
    • Edits made (reference to airport and hotels removed) User:Sexitoni 23:260, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Culture

  Working

Education

  Working

Transport

  • I'm not sure I trust irishships.com, but even if I did, it says nothing about a lack of passenger traffic.

  Working

Sport

  • The subheadings here can be taken out, seeing how many of them have only a couple sentences (see Taunton for an example of how a GA handles sports like this)
  • "The first cycling club in Dundalk was founded in 1874" needs a citation.
  • "was voted by the country's national governing body Cycling Ireland Club of the Year in 2010 and 2012" is not only hard to understand, but is close to copyvio
  • The club caters for all disciplines of the sport including road, off-road and BMX. This sentence reads as promotional.
  • replace em dash with comma
  • The entire association football paragraph needs to be redone with a reliable source (see WP:SELFPUB -- I also couldn't find much information about the author from a quick Google search, which makes me doubt his credentials)
  • All of the Gaelic football clubs need a citation
  • Knockbridge GAA having 11 titles needs a citation
  • The hurling paragraph feels disjointed in its current state
  • The provided reference says nothing about Cú Chulainn traveling over the Cooley Mountains
  • Combine first two sentences about Dundalk R.F.C.
  • Rugby paragraph also feels very disjointed (almost every sentence starts with "The club")
  • Comma after "reopened as Dundalk Stadium"
  • 1889 is never mentioned in the Dundalk Stadium ref
  • Greyhound racing link gives me a 404
  • No idea what the Proleek Dolmen is, and it's not mentioned in the citation
  • Pipe athletics clubs to sports club
  • Not sure why 'ban' is in quotes
  • Statement on the GAA ban on foreign games is uncited
  • Nothing about the Cricket Union division championships is cited
  • Dundalk Ice Dome & Dundalk Bulls needs a citation
  • WL American football
  • That last sentence is a hell of a run-on
  • This whole section contains a lot of trivial (and uncited) information.

Media

References

  Working

General comments

  Working

Final comments and verdict

I apologize for how long you've been waiting. Unfortunately, I am going to have to ✗ Fail this article. It's always hard to decide whether to put an article on hold or fail it, but I like Daniel Case's unofficial criteria (as can be seen here that, if it would take longer than a week to improve the article, then it's too far away to be put on hold.

My primary concerns are in order:

1. Original research. On the sections I did comb through, there are lots of statements that need citations, or citations that don't match up with the article text.
2. Focus. Strong Wiki articles are written in summary style, and the back half of the article goes into far too much trivial detail, with lists of exact businesses that went out of business, or specific seasons of sports.
3. Independent sources. The back half of the article uses almost entirely websites from the businesses, clubs, etc. that they're talking about, which isn't a mortal sin, but could definitely be improved.
4. Prose. I'm not being a stickler for every individual comma, in part because I default to American English, but some sentences are very hard to read, and there are lots of stilted paragraphs where the same phrase is repeated in every sentence. Asking for a comb-through at the WP:GOCE should help with that.

I'm sorry that you were waiting so long with what ended up a disappointing result. I hope that my rationale makes sense to you, and that you can return later with an even better article! My main recommendation (besides GOCE) would be to look at the current geography and places good articles, to see the level of detail and the types of sources that usually go into a city or town article. Kncny11 (shoot) 23:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dundalk/Archive_1&oldid=1170827632"