Talk:Magherascouse/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Shannon1 (talk · contribs) 01:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. I've gone and fixed some minor nitpicky things with formatting and grammar; this mostly needs a decent amount of attention to the citations/references. Shannon [ Talk ] 01:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   "toponomy" section is approaching copyvio, see below

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• General comments
  • Several citations are formatted wrong. We don't want a bare URL in the website/publisher field. #1, for example, should read "Irish Townlands" rather than "www.townlands.ie". Similarly, #2 should read "Northern Ireland Placename Project" not "www.experience.arcgis.org".
  • Please add a publisher to the following citations. #3, 6, 9, 13, 22, 23, 24 through 36
  • Citations to books/long reports need page numbers. For example, #4, 5, 7, 8
  • Don't put "Google Books" in the name= field of the citation. The actual publisher is listed in the description page. For example, #8, "Reports from the Commissioner" attributes the publisher to Institute of Irish studies, and should be listed under the publisher= field. Put Google Books under the website= field.
  • Some statistics are missing metric/imperial conversions, e.g. "lough of about 4.452 hectares" under Geography.

• Toponomy
  • The source seems fine, but the text follows it a little too closely. Some sentences are 100% lifted from the source, for example, All the earlier spellings suggest that the original form of the place name was Machaire Scamha meaning ‘plain of the bare patch of rocks. Suggest completely rewriting this section in original prose. It's ok to paraphrase but it's just too similar.
  • Some of the sentences are long and hard to read, would suggest breaking up.

• History
  • I made a few minor edits to the layout.
  • What is "middling" in comparison to?
  • Citation #10, "Griffith's Valuation BCDR", appears broken. It gives me a "session timeout" error

• Geography
  • citations #16 and #17 reference the Ros Davis genealogy site which I question below as a reliable source, would suggest finding a secondary source to back this up.

• Demography
  • What does "very large ethnicity" mean?

• Education
  • I'm not sure if every headmaster of the Magherascouse School needs to be listed. See Wikipedia:Too much detail. I think just the first and last would be fine.
  • Genealogy sites (#31, 35) are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. The Ros Davies site does helpfully give a list of primary sources; I would suggest finding those sources and citing them directly.
  • Second paragraph does not appear to be supported by citation #33 ("Lennon Wylie Ballygowan"). I searched for several of the names and did not find them in the source.
  • Third paragraph is unreferenced.

While short, I could see this qualifying for GA after the above concerns are addressed. Regards, Shannon [ Talk ] 01:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Shannon1, it looks like your nominator is inactive. Do you think it's a pass or a fail in its current state? (Just to be clear about citations - so long as you can figure out what the source is, that's good enough for GA.) -- asilvering (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering: I would not pass it in its current state. This is the first time I've done a GA review (I've put a lot of articles through GA but never been a reviewer) so I'm not sure what the protocol is here. Is there a certain amount of time to wait? Shannon [ Talk ] 04:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

You're supposed to give the editor a week to work through the issues, though it's very common for reviews to end up taking longer since most reviewers are happy to wait longer if the nom pops in to say "got busy, will do this weekend!" or whatever. That doesn't look like it will happen with this nominator, since they've been gone since early January, so it's fine for you to fail it now. By the way, since you started this review in March, it qualifies for the backlog drive. -- asilvering (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Failing the nomination due to inactivity. Shannon [ Talk ] 20:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for my absence, I'll likely sort out these issues and try another nomination. I was away due to personal issues so there wasn't much i could do. Dr Ulster (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)