Talk:The Tale of Mac Da Thó's Pig

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 January 2019 and 15 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bshields93. Peer reviewers: Jahh21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Translation for English Wikisource

The External links section gives a link to Nora Kershaw Chadwick's translation, which was published in 1927, and she died in 1972. That means her translation is not in the public domain either in the U.S. or in the U.K. and so cannot be used at English Wikisource. Is there another translation, published before 1923 by a translator who died before 1940, that could be used at English Wikisource? At the moment, Wikisource just has an amateur translation of the very beginning. +Angr 06:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The Corpus of Electronic Texts has the following bibliography, according to which the two usable English translations would be by Kuno Meyer in Hibernica Minora (Anecdota Oxoniensia) (1894) and A. H. Leahy in Heroic Romances of Ireland (1905). However, Meyer's translation is taken from Rawlinson B 512, which is the later (expanded) version of the tale. Similarly Leahy's translation, though based on the Book of Leinster, contains "some Additions from Rawlinson, B. 512". Since they differ from the original text used by Wikisource, neither translation is ideal, and the language used by both is also somewhat dated. The only other translations within the timeframe you specify are in French and German. --Grimhelm (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Which aren't much use to the average reader of this article, though they should be added sooner or later to the French and German Wikisources. For those two, it's sufficient that the author died before 1940; it doesn't matter if the translation was published in or after 1923, as it does for English Wikisource. Still, having Meyer and Leahy are better than nothing, and it doesn't matter so much if the translation isn't a perfect match of OldWikisource's Old Irish text (though it would be nice if it were). +Angr 13:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Tale of Mac Da Thó's Pig/GA1. 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. [1]

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!  Done

   The tale was apparently also popular in later times, ...was also apparently... would read better.  Done

   The red wikilink to Mag nAilbi should be added to the first instance of this place name a few lines above.  Done

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Assume good faith for all offline sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Thorough, clear and not unnecessarily detailed.

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, 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.

7. 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) Done

   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)

Peer Review Josh

1. First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? I think we are all in agreement that this article accomplishes its purpose. 2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? I was going to suggest including more pictures, but you have some really good ones already. 3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? publish it. 4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? I could include more details. This article is thorough and engaging. Well done. Josh Jahh21 (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)