Talk:Urquhart Castle/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 18:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   • The lead is a bit short for an article of this length. Particularly, I see nothing in the lead that summarizes the information from the Description section and its subsections.
   • Lead, "Urquhart played its role in" -> "played a role in"?
   • The early castle, "On his death" I'm assuming you mean de Lundin's death, but it would be good to make this explicit.
   • The early castle, "Although it is clear that a castle existed by this time," How is it clear? What makes it clear if the first "reliable" references are from later?
   • The early castle, "Sir William fitz Warin was appointed constable for the English," Does this mean he was put in charge of the castle?
   • The early castle, "Urquhart was controlled by the Scots again in 1298," How was it controlled? How did they capture it?
   • The early castle, "he too headed up" - "headed up" is a bit colloquial. Perhaps "travelled up"?
   • Nether Bailey, "contained a hall at first floor," I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean.
   • Upper Bailey, "is a doocot" This is linked to Dovecote - not sure if it's a typo or an alternate spelling?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • File:Columba at Bridei's fort.jpg uses an author life + 70 years tag, but does not give a death date for the author. It could probably instead use a pre-1923 publication tag, although I'm not 100% sure on this.
   • Text should not be sandwiched between images, as it is at the beginning of the History section and the Nether Bailey section.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall, quite nicely written. A few minor issues with prose and a couple of image niggles. Once these are addressed, I think the article should be good to go for GA status. For now, I'm placing the review on hold. Dana boomer (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review Dana. I'll make a start on the necessary changes today. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I have pudged up the lead a bit and divided into a couple of paragraphs. I've also been through the list of prose comments and tried to clarify these, hopefully for the better. For the images, I binned the Columba picture as it isn't massively relevant, and rearranged those in the last section (discovering both {{annotated image}} and {{multiple images}} in the process, handy). If you have any further suggestions for improvement please let me know. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Everything looks good, so I am now passing the article to GA status. Especially nice work on the images - that is a very nice use of the multiple images template! Dana boomer (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks indeed for your review and kind comments! Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)