# Talk:Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty

This review is transcluded from Talk:Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sotakeit (talk · contribs) 21:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Johannes Schade! I've put this GA review on hold for the moment to give you chance to correct some clear citation issues. As per WP:GAFAIL, any articles with extant cleanup banners qualify for immediate failure. Although in areas the article is very well cited, there are still quite a few statements missing citations. If you could correct this, I'll continue with the review. Let me know if you have any questions in the meantime. Sotakeit (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sotakeit: Dear Sotakeit. Thank you very much for taking on this review. Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty is my first GA nomination. I see that you have created 233 pages, of which 34 articles. I looked at Saint-Sulpice, Paris, which is very nice and particularly well-illustrated. I am still a bit of a novice. I read up in the instructions and see that "articles with cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid" should be failed immediately. Thank you for rather putting this review on hold. I feel that it is not up to me to remove the cleanup banner as I am evidently biased. I must admit that I do not see where the "missing citations" should be. Could you eventually add some "Citation needed" maintenance tags to guide me? I hope to collaborate well with you and learn a lot. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 08:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
@Sotakeit: Dear Sotakeit. A week is gone. I have added 36 citations. I am not sure that this has fixed the issue as in the process I also added more content and the citation density (18 words/citation) stayed the same. What do you think? With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay @Johannes Schade:. Life getting in the way. I've removed the hold tag and hopefully I'll get through this this evening or tomorrow. On a first glance it's a good article, so I don't think there is likely to be many suggestions. Will update you ASAP. Sotakeit (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Johannes Schade:, thanks for baring with me. Overall I think thing the article is good. With some tweaking in areas, I think it would pass on all six criteria. I made some minor changes with language, there being quite a few examples of what I think would be considered informal English. I've made some suggestions below that would need addressing. Sotakeit (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear Sotakeit. I am glad to hear from you. I do not seem to find citations for the 6 statements you mention. (1 & 2)I have deleted the first two. Nothing is known and things could perhaps be different from what I imagined. (3) The 3rd "Sir Donough, as an Irish Catholic, therefore expected to see the graces confirmed in this parliament in which he was sitting." I wonder whether it really needs a citation. (4) I reformulated I think it should be understandable and obvious without another citation. (5) This is not a sentence I wrote. I am still looking for where it came from. (5) Lieutenants could leave Ireland and appoint a Deputy who stood in for them. — You find the term "grace" old-fashioned. However, this is the name used by the historians. I found, however, that Wikipedia has an article The Graces (Ireland), which I had overlooked, so I reworded a bit and linked to this article. — I changed reign to tenure, the Infobox seems to tolerate this. — Mountgarret had become the President of the Confederacy. I reworded to make this clear. That's it for today. With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Dear Sotakeit. I deleted the sentence about knighthood being a bonus, but kept the Efn. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Dear Sotakeit. I have doubts about the usefulness of the two tables of sessions. Perhaps I should throw them out. I replaced all 10-digit ISBNs with 13-digit ISBNs in the sources. I added citations for the two small family trees, which did not have any up-to-now, but I wonder what the right way is to provide verifiability for a family tree. User Jdorney has given me a citation for Cromwell "His aims were avenging ...". Unluckily, that source is not accessible online.
Dear Sotakeit: I added an anchor to link to for the issue-link in the Infobox. Also a citation for Brian Boru.
Dear Sotakeit. I added the citation that you demanded (1.A.1.6) showing that the Lord Lieutenant had the right to appoint a Deputy under him.
@Sotakeit: We are going nowhere. I want to withdraw the nomination. Please, just fail the GA. I will then restart with a different reviewer.
@Sotakeit: I consider you have withdrawn from this review. Not knowing why you do not respond, I thank you for your efforts and hold you are well. I will follow the instructions under "If the reviewer withdraws" and open GA2, hoping to get a new reviewer soon. Johannes Schade (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


### Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
I've removed the citation banner as, on the whole, the article is well sourced. There are still a few statements that I think need to be referenced:
"She must have converted to Catholicism to do so."
"The subsidiary title, Baron Blarney, was certainly meant as a courtesy title for Donough MacCarty, but apparently he never used the name."
"Sir Donough, as an Irish Catholic, therefore expected to see the graces confirmed in this parliament in which he was sitting."
"... who was however powerless in Confederate territory."
"His aims were avenging the uprising of 1641, confiscating enough Irish Catholic-owned land to pay off some of the Parliament's debts, and eliminating a dangerous outpost of royalism."
"...and therefore could now appoint a deputy under him."
The use of "reign" in the infobox doesn't quite fit here. Perhaps "tenure", as used here, is a better option?
I'm unsure of the meaning of the use of "graces" here, and subsequently throughout this paragraph. I'm not sure this is standard English anymore: "King Charles I had let know in 1626 that he was ready to grant "graces" to the Irish Catholics against payment". Maybe an explanation or a synonym?
Some clarification needed here I suspect: "...at the capital he was received by President Mountgarret". President of what? Mountgarret is mentioned previously without the title.
There are nine uses of the word "probably". I would suggest using some synonyms or alternatives. "Likely" perhaps?

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
Is there a better way of phrasing "Some said that Muskerry avoided...". Who said this? See MOS:WEASEL.

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
Well referenced.
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
Well referenced.
C. No original research: 
This strikes me as original research: "Knighthood seems to still have been considered a bonus for the job". Do you have a reference to support this?

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Well illustrated.
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: John Maynard Friedman (talk · contribs) 10:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I am about to review this article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


### Lead
Maybe a footnote giving the pronunciation using {{IPA}} or {{respell}} would be useful since "ough" has many readings (see for example the concluding sentence of Milton Keynes#Original towns and villages).
Dear John Maynard Friedman. I agree but do not know how Donough is pronounced. My guess is either ['dono] or ['donox]. The name is not in the BBC Pronouncing Dictionary and Hanks (cited) does not give the pronunciation. Johannes Schade (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Pity. I thought I remembered an Irish international rugby player of that name, but he is Donncha O'Callaghan. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
As a general principle, footnotes should be limited to incidental details or explanations of points that may not be obvious to readers unfamiliar with the topic or or period. So the footnote about the variations of his name does not qualify, it should be in the body. The footnote about Lord Strafford does qualify, but "highest position in Ireland" is far too vague: should it say something like "the King's representative in Ireland, like a modern governor-general but with significantly more executive power"? But in that case, what does the Lord Lieutenant do? By the way, at first use, I would prefer the honorific 'Lord' prefixed to Strafford but maybe this is not conventional?
Perhaps the explanations of the spelling variations does qualify for "incidental", but the main reason for putting it to away was that I did not want to start off with something as boring as that. It does not engage the reader. The spelling variations are important of course when you want to make searches in the literature, but the common reader will not go for that. Johannes Schade (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok, accepted. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Backtracking here today from the mention of Lord Deputy of Ireland at #Honours and Parliaments, I've just had a look at Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and see that you shouldn't mention that title in any event because it didn't come into being until 1690. The Lord Deputy article tells me that Strafford was Lord Deputy, so this is should be reported here. As he is important, you need somewhere to expose his given name (Thomas Wentworth).
Governor - The title of the king's representative in Ireland was Lord Justice, Lord Deputy, or Lord Lieutenant. The Lords Justice were two or three who ruled together. Thomas Radclyffe, 3rd Earl of Sussex seems to have been the first Lord Lieutenant and was elevated from Lord Deputy in about 1560 (see Lord Deputy of Ireland]]). The main difference between Lord Lieutenant and Lord Deputy was that the Deputy was not allowed to leave Ireland, at least at Muskerry's time. The Lord Lieutenant could appoint a Lord Deputy under him to rule in his stead. I have cited Wedgwood p272 who says that Strafford was elevated to Lord Lieutenant in 1640. Johannes Schade (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
This is a real mess and, as he is so important for the article, you need to do something to resolve these titles. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Changed the caption of his image to his full name. Also explained at first mention that he is Wentworth, "later Strafford".Johannes Schade (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
That's a good solution but it is fatally undermined by the position of the image: it needs to be right beside the text that describes him. Way down the page, where it is now, makes it just decoration ("Images should be to inform and illustrate, not to decorate".) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 Done --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
"He joined the Confederates " needs to be prefixed with "In the War of the Three Kingdoms" to give it wider context.
I think Muskerry wanted to join the Irish Confederates precisely and not a side in the British Civil War that he did not really care about. The Confederate war should of course be put into the wider context. I do not like the term. There are worldwide and through time certainly hundreds of wars that involved three kingdoms. It is a politically correct version of British civil War as the Irish nationalists refuse the term "British", in British Civil War when applied to Ireland or in British Isles. Johannes Schade (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok, obviously I'm looking at it from an English perspective and not aware of the subtleties and sensitivities. Accepted as  Declined--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Wlink papal nuncio.
 Done Johannes Schade (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Expand "Restoration" to "Restoration of the Monarchy".
If I do that I should probably also render explicit an Overthrow of the monarchy, which is hidden in the word Commonwealth. Do you feel that more general terms are needed for our Nigerian and Japanese readers? I expanded to Restoration in 1660. Johannes Schade (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Within reason, yes. Actually I try to write for GCSE students who have been given an essay assignment. I won't dumb down the language but do try to give them some clear sign-posts for at least the major milestones. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
After some more thought I think you are right. I therefore changed to a wlinked "restoration of the monarchy". Do you have a suggestions what Commonwealth then should become? It is probably even more confusing to my favoured Nigerian reader and perhaps to your GCSE students as well. Johannes Schade (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you,  Done
Formally it is the Commonwealth of England. I think spelling it out like that is good and will cause readers to do a double take, as indeed thyey should. Agree? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Which reminds me of an earlier confusion I had. When you refer to "Parliament" during the Confederate War, I am conditioned to think of that in English term: Parliament v King. Clearly you shouldn't bog the article down with a history of Ireland, that you should assume your readers have background knowledge to be in this deep. I wouldn't expect you to recognise a parallel event in, say, Poland. But a note or footnote somewhere would assist an unwary English reader who expects the world to rotate around London. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Changed to Parliamentarian in the lead and to Commonwealth of England where it occurs in the text. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 Done --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Why are the Arms of the MacCarthys not in the infobox (
I have seen this parameter in the template but have never seen it filled in in an article. The Infobox should be kept short. I have the CoA further down as a figure. Johannes Schade (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that's why I asked. It looked odd and a bit of a sore thumb. You might experiment to see how it renders. I don't mind a long infobox if there is a long contents column. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I tried to see whether the CoA parameter displays the image. I does not seem to work. Displaying the coat of arms in a separate image is not unusual. See e.g. the FAs George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore and Caroline of Ansbach. I moved the coat of arms image up to the section "Birth and origins". This allowed me to move the full version of his portrait and Strafford's image upward. It also allowed me to add an additional image. I chose Limerick Castle.
Accepted as  Declined. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


### Birth and origins
Possible locations of birth: County Cork needed.
I agree I am jumping a bit too fast into the detail.
 Done Johannes Schade (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
His father: the citations say "Cormac". The citation for "also known as 'Charles'" is almost a throw-away in its citation. I suggest that this is clutter and I would delete.
Do I understand you correctly that the citation you mean is "He [Charles] d. v.p. being slain ..."? Did you not realise that I added the "[Charles]" part to explain who "he" is? I thought it was conventional to do this in quotations. MOS:QUOTE has examples for adding "things" between square brackets ([]) in quotes, even if not precisely in the manner I do. Johannes Schade (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, [...] is the convention as you say. My concern is more about a seemingly arbitrary choice of which name to use, that it should be "He [Cormac] d. v.p. being slain..." or if ambiguous then "He [Cormac (Charles)] d. v.p.... "
Changed to "He [Charles (Cormac)] d. v.p.... " I decided to make Charles his main name.
Ok, the main issue was consistent treatment.  Done
I feel it is important to mention both. The parallel use of an vernacular and an English first name is typical of a colonised country. Charles and Cormac are not translations of each other. They are unrelated and just sound a bit similar. Johannes Schade (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok, but elsewhere you suddenly start calling him Charles. One has to be primary and the other in parentheses if it matters. Best not to lose sight of the fact that the article is about Donough and not get bogged down in details about "also starring" roles. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
He is often remembered for his untimely death predeceasing his father and his burial in Westminster Abbey. This is probably why the title of his article uses Charles. Besides one must not confuse his son Cormac with his invalid elder brother Cormac, his father Cormac, or his grandfather Cormac. I follow this use calling him Charles in the Family tree, the list of sons and at his death. I call him "Cormac (or Charles)" at his birth and "Charles" at his death in the timeline. Johannes Schade (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't like this approach but won't insist. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 Declined by agreement. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
"the established religion" - wlink
Done Johannes Schade (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Not adequately. You have yet to clear up the Cormac (Anglicised as Charles) usage. It confuses the reader to bob about like this: I think you are being swayed too much by sources that use the Anglicised name in a very C19, C20 way. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Wrong wlink. Generic state religion is unhelpful. It should go to Anglicanism (thus: [[Anglicanism|the established religion]]) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I wonder now if Church of Ireland would be a better target? Not knowing the 'baggage' involved, I'll leave that one to your judgement. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
You are right: Church of Ireland is probably more correct. I finally put both state religion and Church of Ireland to navigate between MOS:EGG and WP:SYNTH.
 Done --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't really understand why their religion was so significant, maybe this needs a specific sub-section to explain?
Reading on about The Graces, I am now even more confused. You say that the family was protestant, that his mother was protestant, so how did he get to be catholic?
Ok, I didn't know that the Confederate War in Ireland was a war of religion. I'm even more sure that you need a subsection to explain the religious background.
Where do you think it should go? What do you suggest as a title? Johannes Schade (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Probably best place is just before #Honours and parliaments. How about "Religious identities in the early 17th century"? If you do this, I would remove all the religious identities that you have attached to people and families in the preceding sections but set them out here. The person who was fostered (hostage?) out the Archbishop of Canterbury should go here too.
This one remains to be done. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I have added a paragraph at the end of the section Birth and origins"" to which I have moved the material about his grandfathers' religion. It still needs some polishing and ideally citations, but these seem hard to come by. Johannes Schade (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I know that you don't like 'hanging section titles' but I feel that this subsection needs to be flagged with its own title.
 Done --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
"Donough and his siblings grew up to be Catholics. It is not known how this came about, but it might have been due to the influence of his stepmother Ellen, who seemed to have been a Catholic." Oh dear, compound speculation, you can't say that without a citation. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Surely but I do not know what to do.
Just remove the speculation and I will close as done.  [You don't need to say anything more than "It is not known how this came about."] --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 Done --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
"Oge" : google translate does not recognise this word as Irish Gaelic. Did you mean Óg (Oge)?
You are right this is not correct in Irish, but I am just repeating what I find in the English literature. They say "Cormac Oge". In Irish "young" is "óg" and younger is "óige" [ˈɔːɟɪ] (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/óg), but all the literature says "oge". I suppose it is a older or Munster-local form of óige or an anglicisation of it? I think Irish does not really get transliterated as it is written with the Latin alphabet. I think there is no doubt it means "younger" and that is all I wanted to say. Johannes Schade (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Fine but you have written "was distinguished from his grandfather by the Gaelic epithet 'Oge'," when it is not Gaelic. How about "was distinguished from his grandfather by the Gaelic epithet Óg, (transliterated into English as 'Oge') meaning 'young'"? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Changed the wording so that it does not say Gael but "coming from Gaelic".Johannes Schade (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
It would read better as "an Anglicised form of the Gaelic" --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I had another look at Oge. It seems indeed to be an anglicisation. The "i" in "óige" is mute. The anglicisation dropped the acute accent (called "fada"), which makes the o long, and omitted the mute "i". In Irish most consonants can be pronounced "broad" or "slender" according to the accompanying vowel. A bit like the c and the g in English words of French origin. The "g" in "óige" is a slender "g", which sounds a bit like the English g in "age". Now Irish has a spelling rule "slender with slender and broad with broad", which says that slender consonants must have slender vowel (i,e) before and after the slender consonant, hence the introduction of a mute "i", or that is as I understand it now.
May I suggest that the derivation of "Oge" would work better as a {{efn}} footnote? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Moved into an explanatory footnote where I also says that there are a lot of Cormacs in the family.
 Done --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
"High king of Ireland" - wlink? dates?
I did link it. I think more detail is not warranted here. It just wanted to show it is an Irish aristocratic family of old standing and instead of just saying "old family" I wanted to give sa significant fact and a corresponding citation so I went for the high king in the family. Johannes Schade (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Odd, I didn't see a link, I had to search for it to see what it meant. Perhaps prefix with "pre-conquest"? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
You only linked Brian Boru, you haven't linked High King of Ireland. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
The links in Wikipedia were once all underlined but that was too distracting. Now they are sometimes difficult to see. Brian Boru reigned 1002–1014. I feel dates should be given only when the principal person is concerned. The article mentions Brian only once in a very marginal role. I added "medieval". Johannes Schade (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I agree re dates, scrubbed. If you have to choose between linking 'Brian Boru' and 'High King of Ireland', I would choose the latter but this is another one for your judgement. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I linked both Brian Boru and High king.
 Done --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Are these sibling {{clist}}s conventional in these Peerage articles? Is this the best place to put them?
Good questions. I find that it is useful information that complements what is in the family tree. I collapsed it so that it does not take up too much space. That is perhaps unusual, but I feel that Wikipedia should make more use of the abilities that the screen offers but the paper cannot. Johannes Schade (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree but in another context I got told off for disabling blind readers. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I am not the only one to add collapsed content. Many authors collapse their Family trees and ahnentafels. What was your case? For example the FA article Caroline of Ansbach (promoted 10 Sep 2011) has a section "Ancestry" whose only content is a collapsed ahnentafel. Johannes Schade (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Accepted.  Done --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
After further discussion at my talk page, this one is back on the agenda, because it contravenes MOS:DONTHIDE}}. You resolved it by setting the default to expand, which makes a real mess of the layout. I suggest strongly that you move these tables and geneology charts to the end of the article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC) (Off the agenda again, not a GA criterion). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The caption on the portrait "The 2nd Viscount Muskerry" needs expanding to say "Donough MacCarty as the 2nd Viscount Muskerry". Readers do need these signposts.
This portrait is badly misplaced. It should be next to the text to which it relates, ("On 20 February 1641, Sir Donough's father, aged about 77, died in London, during his parliamentary mission.")
Moved the portrait down and changed to the more explicit caption you suggested.
Much better.  Done --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


### Early life, marriage, and children
"His father's second marriage was probably childless; at least, no children from this marriage seem to be known." is speculation. Delete the first phrase and change second to "are recorded in the major genealogical sources".
Done Johannes Schade (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Agreed.  Done --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
"she married thirdly Thomas..." is difficult to parse. A simpler version would be "she married a third time, to Thomas..." or even just "she married again, to Thomas..."
Done Johannes Schade (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Now I wonder why you have mentioned this fact? Why is it relevant? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I am still trying to find out more about her. She might be the reason why the family became Catholic. Johannes Schade (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok, but even so I think you are wandering off-topic. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
If you take it out of the article for now, I can mark it as done for the purposes of this GA nomination. If you discover more info, nothing says you can't add it after the GA award.  --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 Done --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
"MacCarty married Eleanor Butler " Which MacCarthy? (I know what you mean but I shouldn't have to stop to work it out. Best use forenames in this section.
I added the first name at this place.
Done Johannes Schade (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
It would read better as "Donough married ...". --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
There are editors who told me not to use his first name when he is an adult. WP:BIODD "Use full name in the first sentence, surname after". Doing this sounds weird I agree with you, but you find this implemented in many biographies in Wikipedia. Luckily having a title solves the problem in his later life. I suppose when  somebodies family has not been discusses it is without problem to say "Einstein did ...".
If that is the convention, I suppose we have to comply but, with so many MacCartys around, surely disambiguation is needed? Einstein is obviously the other end of the spectrum. Fine, let it stand:  Declined --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
"He seems to have been married once before " No seems about it, the citation says he was. Maybe you need to say something about sources disagreeing.
Prefixed "According to John O'Hart". I hope this is fine. I do not really like mentioning the names of historians. That really belongs into the "citation layer". Johannes Schade (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
No, you shouldn't mention the names of the historians unless they are especially notable. I think you have to say simply that "historians disagree on whether this was his first or second marriage but his only recorded lineage is descended from it", cite the three historians and give a footnote giving O'Hart's version including the child. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Issue still open. We agreed that you shouldn't name O'Hart. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
If I changed to "According to one source ..."? Johannes Schade (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that works better.  Done --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Cormac, later known as Charles. You may explain later on but unless you have evidence that he fully adopted the Anglicised name and discarded the Gaelic name, the text should read Cormac, also known as Charles. It is unfortunate that the existing article uses his alias as primary.
His son Cormac left Ireland in 1647, went to France and then to London where he was known as Charles.
Done Johannes Schade (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I suggest that you change this to "to London, where his name was Anglicised to Charles" to assist your readers. Your choice. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Don't you think somebody would come along with a {{cn}} if I did this? I do not have a citation.
Possibly, but we know he was described using the anglicised form of his name, so where/when/how did he acquire it? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I think it just happened informally, people at court making remarks about his first name being too Irish? We do not know. Nor is it likely that he formally renounced his Gaelic name.
Agreed above that the name Charles will used consistently so, by agreement,  Declined. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


### Honours and parliaments
Wlink first instance of Cork County.
Cork County is now mentioned earlier when discussing his place of birth.
Done Johannes Schade (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I thought that the name of the county is "County Cork" and the name of the parliamentary constituency is "Cork County", different things? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
So it is. Johannes Schade (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Issue still open. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
The issue is that you mention Cork County twice in the first paragraph but you have wlinked the second instance rather than the first. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
County Cork appears once in the lead and is linked. It appears for the 2nd time in the section Birth and origins, 1st paragraph, where it is linked again, as lead and body are considered separate in this regard. There are no further mentions. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm afraid that you seem to be confusing County Cork (the geographic county) with Cork County (Parliament of Ireland constituency). I refer to the latter. (As this is taking longer to explain than to do, I have broken purdah and just done it as a minor edit).  Done --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
State opening of Parliament: the word order is a bit awkward. I would write it as "The Parliament was opened with all pomp on 14 July 1634 by the new Lord Deputy of Ireland,[77][78] Lord Strafford,[79] who had taken up office in July 1633.
You need to check the article for this kind of WP:EGG, it was only when suggesting a rewrite that I spotted that Wentworth and Strafford are the same person. War and Peace syndrome! :-D
I think you need to use just one of either Wentworth or Strafford throughout the article.
I disagree. I think just like Clancarty id first only Donough MacCarty, then Sir Donough, then Viscount Muskerry and finally Earl Clancarty; so do other people also evolve through similar stages. He was Thomas Wentworth, Baron Wentworth, at this time and would become Earl of Strafford only in 1640. So I replaced Strafford with "Thomas Wentworth, later Lord Strafford". I hope you agree. Johannes Schade (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, no, not entirely. But it is ok if you signal clearly every change of name but I had the distinct impression that you use Wentworth or Strafford more or less at random. During his presence in Ireland, surely he was only ever Lord Strafford? Why do you need to use the name Wentworth at all? (apart from as a portrait caption "Thomas Wentworth, the Lord Strafford").--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Issue still open. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Dear John Maynard Friedman. When he came to Ireland in 1633, he was Baron Wentworth. He became Earl of Strafford only in 1640 and left Ireland in that same year never to return. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 Declined --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Your positioning of the portrait of Strafford is very strange, at the point were he leaves office. (This portrait would be a good place to give his given name and title together)
The top part of the article is crowded with images. I do not think I can move Wentworth further up. Johannes Schade (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Can you move the family tree up to the Birth section? Can you make it collapsible? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Issue still open. The current positioning will cause an "Illustrations" failure because it is so out of place. It may as well be in a gallery. .--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I finally moved the coat of arms up into the Birth and Origins section. So I could move Strafford's portrait up.
Done? Johannes Schade (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Agreed,  Done. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
"who had taken up office in July 1633." invites a cn tag, so cite it or delete it.
The article already has such a citation, referring to York (1911), just after "July 1633".
Done Johannes Schade (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
How strange! I can't believe that I would have raised this issue unless I could see it as uncited but there is no doubt from the history that it is cited and has been cited long before I got involved. A ripple in the aether or something! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
He came to Ireland in 1633 being Thomas Wentworth, Baron Wentworth". He was made Earl of Strafford in January 1640. He left Ireland in April 1640. Therefore I call him Wentworth until he became Strafford. At the change I use the formula "as Wentworth was now known" to alert the reader to the name change. He is mainly known as Strafford because he is most famous for the process and his death. Johannes Schade (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 Done --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
"The House of Commons had a Protestant majority[81] as King James I had created 39 pocket boroughs to that effect for his Irish Parliament of 1613–1615.[82]" is wp:SYNTH. The source say that James created the pocket boroughs to ensure a government majority.
My quote just says "James created thirty-nine new boroughs expressly for parliamentary purposes ...". This is at p 109, line 3. A bit further it says Government strong but if you read what is before at the middle of p108 it says "it was necessary to secure a Protestant majority".
Government majority meant Protestant majority in these crazy religious ("sectarian" as we would say in modern Northern Ireland) times.
But you are straying into SYNTH. The citation just says "government". I appreciate that it becomes more obvious when we get to The Graces but I think you are jumping the gun. Maybe you can explain that the government had to be Protestant but you can't misrepresent the source. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Issue still open. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
In the Irish context of the 17th and 18th century the "government" was Protestant with the exception of the rule of James II and the Jacobite expedition into Ireland during the Williamite War in Ireland (1688–1691). All the governors were Protestants. Most of them English (like Strafford), the remainder Protestant Irish (like Ormond). The pocket boroughs created by James I were owned by Protestants. Have you consulted the article Pocket borough? It says "controlled by a single person." Johannes Schade (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I know about pocket boroughs, they were used in England too. And their purpose was the same: to ensure a government majority. Not a religious majority. I am aware that the two issues are closely linked in Ireland but shouldn't just meld them without explanation or make inferences that are not in the source material. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I added two new citation: Gardiner 1884, p47 which says Protestants and not Government. Gardiner 1883 vol 2 says 36 boroughs for Protestant votes. I hope thus eliminates the odour of possible MOS:SYNTH.
Accepted as  Declined. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
"King Charles I had let know in 1626" -> "had let it be known"
Done Johannes Schade (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
"the Lord Deputy at the time, Lord Falkland, never held that parliament." 'Convened' that parliament? (I mis-stepped here because I was expecting something like 'Falkland never held that parliament had the right to do so". A legalistic interpretation of the word 'hold', perhaps?)
Indeed. I must be wasting a lawyer's time. I chose neutral and slightly imprecise "held" because I think the King summons the parliament on proposition by the viceroy. Changed to "summoned" nevertheless. Do you agree?
Yes (I'm not a lawyer, just working on the Calendar Act has warped my brain!)
 Done --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
"Sir Donough therefore expected to see the graces confirmed in this parliament[87][88]" I'm a bit worried that this may be wp:SYNTH since the citations just say that Catholic landowners in general expected. But it is a reasonable surmise.
I think this WP:SYNTH is a dangerous one that one should not take to sharp otherwise we will limit ourselves severely and cannot write texts that make sense to the reader. Take also into consideration that if I gave only the page, you would you would have much more trouble to cry WP:SYNTH.
As I said, a reasonable surmise for a GA but it wouldn't pass FA.  Done --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
"subsidies for the King" needs a wlink or a footnote for this archaic usage of the word subsidy.
Linked as subsidies for the King. Johannes Schade (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
That is a bit wp:egg-ish. Only subsidy should be linked. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Issue still open. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I've changed my mind on this one because "for the king" guides readers to the relevant definition on Wiktionary.  Done. --22:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
"Catholic MPs expressed their anger by voting against any law proposed by Wentworth thereafter and due to absenteeism among the Protestant MPs, they were able to vote several laws down. Sir Donough, as a Catholic, surely voted them down." Avoid the wp:synth by rephrasing as "Catholic MPs, who included Sir Donough in their number, expressed their anger by voting against any law proposed by Wentworth thereafter and due to absenteeism among the Protestant MPs, they were able to vote several laws down. "
 Done --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
"About 1638 the MacCartys bought a baronetcy". Footnote needs to append ", about £33000 today."
Thank you very much! I put it into the text instead of in an Efn; it is quite short.
Done Johannes Schade (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
You had trodden on one of my hobby horses.:-D  --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
A useful one. I will remember this for future use. Johannes Schade (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 Done Johannes Schade (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
"On 3 April 1640 Strafford left Ireland" etc. Your footnote says that he had been elevated from Lord Deputy to Lord Lieutenant. But the Lord Lieutenant article says that this title was first used in 1690 (and the Lord Deputy article says that the post was the King's direct representative). This is a GA stopper that will need to be resolved asap.
The article "Lord Lieutenant of Ireland" indeed says "was the title of the chief governor of Ireland from the Williamite Wars of the 1690 until the partition of ireland in 1922.". However, the article "Lord Deputy of Ireland" lists several Lords Lieutenant before that date. The first is Thomas Radclyffe, 3rd Earl of Sussex, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland from 1560–1564. The article also cites Cokayne 1896, p 263 (citation 112) for Strafford being elevated to Lord Lieutenant in the Efn labelled (m). Johannes Schade (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
That's annoying. I think you have talked yourself into correcting the article Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to resolve the difficulty.
Have you cited somewhere that the Lord L can appoint the Lord Deputy? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes I have, see Wedgwood p272 Johannes Schade (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 Done --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I'm being a clever clogs here, but I would insert a wiktionary link thus: "The committee compiled a [[Wikt:remonstrate|remonstrance]] (or complaint) against Strafford" though I suppose it would be disqualified as a wp:egg.
I see why you want to link to remonstrate rather than to remonstrance: it has a better explanation.
 Done Johannes Schade (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
"the Irish government was represented by the Lord Justices Parsons and Borlase." I don't understand this.
Changed to "devolved to the lords Justices; linked to Lords Justices of Ireland. Johannes Schade (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 Done --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
"Sir Donough therefore succeeded as 2nd Viscount Muskerry" The portrait caption needs to say "Portrait of Sir Donough as the 2nd Viscount Muskerry". In fact, I would create a subsection called "Viscount Muskerry" and put into it the portrait and the whole paragraph beginning "On 20 February 1641, Sir Donough's father, "
I think this would make too short a section. Johannes Schade (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Accepted but the portrait remains to be relocated here and the caption improved. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Moved the portrait down. This portrait is of poor quality and so is the photo with its reflections. I have looked for a better photo but this seems the only one. We do not know the artist or the time. He looks middle-age and therefore was probably Viscount Muskerry at the time when it was painted. Hunt Museum, No. HCP004, Limerick. Always better than none.
Good enough.  Done --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


### Irish wars
"He was also prompted to take up arms by the atrocities committed by St Leger, against the Catholic population,[152] and by the approach ...": an awkwardly placed comma. How about "He was also prompted to take up arms, both by the atrocities committed by St Leger against the Catholic population,[152] and by the approach ..."
Removed the commas. Johannes Schade (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 Done --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I am slightly worried that you are doing an OR here: the citation is just for St Leger's atrocities, not that he was motivated by it. It is nearly wp:the sky is blue but if a citation exists, it would be good.
I think it exists I will look for it. Johannes Schade (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
"The perfect is the enemy of the good", if it turns up later you can add it. For now, lets close it as  Declined. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The approach of Mountgarret's rebel army as another motivator is uncited. The article about Mountgarret piqued my interest, where it says that "After this he was chosen general of the Catholic Confederation which the rebels had formed to coordinate their war effort; but the county of Cork having insisted on choosing a general of its own. Thus were lost the advantages of undivided and vigorous control of the Confederate armies. The Viscount's forces were thereby considerably weakened, and he was defeated by the Earl of Ormonde at the Battle of Kilrush, near Athy, on 10 April 1642." This decision not to coalesce seems to have been a serious error of military judgement that deserves explanation if it can be done briefly (I'm conscious of mission creep, so skip if it isn't trivial to do).
I think the citation exists I will look for it Johannes Schade (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Another case of if it turns up later you can add it. For now, lets close it as  Declined. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I notice also that that Mountgarret article uses the term Anglican rather than 'Protestant' - this may be just me but I associate the latter term more with nonconformism and evangelicalism. Worthy of consideration, not a show-stopper by any means,
You are of course right. I did not want to bring in the distinction, which is important in Northern Ireland, but not for Lord Muskerry in Munster. It seems to me that Protestant is generally accepted for covering both the Anglicans and the nonconformant Protestants in the present context. Johannes Schade (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Accepted as  Declined --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
"The cease-fire with the royalists allowed the Confederates to concentrate on their war with the covenanters in Ulster, who were aligned with the Parliament." Which Parliament?
Ok: English Parliament. Johannes Schade (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 Done --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
"Muskerry avoided to destroy the castle with his artillery" Declined to destroy?
He would certainly not have made any statements about this. His enemies in the clerical faction said he did not attack vigorously enough because he did not want to destroy the castle which belonged to his uncle. Johannes Schade (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
"avoided to destroy" is not colloquial English in the southeast of England. Could you rephrase as I still don't understand what you mean. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I thought you meant something complicated like he disobeyed an order to destroy. "Never choose the easy answer when a complicated one will do" - Occam's stone axe.  Done --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
"a coup d'état executed with help of the Ulster Army that Owen Roe O'Neill had marched down to Leinster. " is a bit awkward. Would "a coup d'état executed with help of Owen Roe O'Neill's Ulster Army that had marched down to Leinster." or would that upset the military historians?
I think not but is it really better? Johannes Schade (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok, let it stand.  Declined--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
"His aims were avenging the uprising of 1641, confiscating enough Irish Catholic-owned land to pay off some of the Parliament's debts, and eliminating a dangerous outpost of royalism." To be seriously picky, IMO this would read better as 'to avenge', 'to confiscate' and 'to eliminate'. Feel free to ignore.
I agree. Do we need to repeat the "to"? Johannes Schade (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Depends on how dramatic you want to be :-) "to avenge, confiscate and destroy" is just as good. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 Done --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
"Boetius MacEgan, Bishop of Ross" -> "Boetius MacEgan, Catholic Bishop of Ross"?
Surely, yes.
 Done Johannes Schade (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
"This son must have been Callaghan, his second son, as his eldest, Cormac, was away in France and Justin was only about nine years old and probably with his mother in France. " Citation needed for 'must'. If changed to a footnote (which is as much as it deserves anyway) then you can say 'was most probably'.
Unluckily there does not seem to be a citation that names the son, only that he gave a son as hostage. Which son it was is of course mainly of interest for the article Callaghan Maccarty, 3rd Earl of Clancarty where I tell this same story.
How do you know it is allowed in an Efn but forbidden in the text? Is that written somewhere? Johannes Schade (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
No, it is not allowed there either but it could be overlooked as not being main text (though not in an FA). The big problem is with the word "must" since it is your inference. A little bit of WP:Weasel is called for, I suggest "was probably".  --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 Done --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


### Restoration, death, and timeline
The Restoration previously linked. 
Yes but the other one is in the lead, which is a separate part (just like the Infobox and the Family tree) where I can everything afresh, as if I never had linked it elsewhere. Besides the "Highlight duplicate links" tool does not find any duplicated links. Johannes Schade (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Accepted.  Declined --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Line-by-line review complete


### GA criteria
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: yes

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: yes, but GOCE review advised.

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

@Johannes Schade: I doubt that your inference that "therefore he was a Catholic" (to have joined the Confederacy) would meet the standard for A-class? If he had declared himself an Atheist or a Pagan –  anything but Church of Ireland –  would he have qualified? Unlikely I know but WP:OR forbids such editorial inferences. Have none of your many source texts covered this explicitly? perhaps equally they all thought it obvious? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Difficult to find better. Where is the limit of OR: if a source says "John Smith had two daughters: Anne, born in 1815, and Berta, born in 1816." I would say you are allowed to write "Anne, the elder", based on that source, even if strictly speaking, this is inferred from the source and the source never says "elder". So in this case. The confederates were all Catholics. They called themselves the Confederate Catholics of Ireland. I do not think there was anything in the statutes or their oath that forbade non-Catholics to join. They had to give themselves an air of tolerance to please the king, who was the head of the Church of Ireland. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
The Anne/Berta example is not really germane since it is a logical deduction from the information presented, it is a 'closed information domain': this is not. At that time (and no doubt more recently), people were quite relaxed about religious labels according to political, commercial or romantic expedience. I have no real doubt that at the time he joined the Confederacy, he at the very least presented himself as a Catholic. But the problem is that I have inferred it but I am not a reliable source. It would be so much better if you could find an RS that would say so. In the list of details we don't really know about him, it is just one and not even a particularly significant one –  but becomes so when the article mentions that his grandfathers were both Protestant: it highlights an anomaly that begs to be picked over. That's what makes it an intriguing DYK candidate, albeit worded carefully to sidestep the OR  problem.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, relevant policy is WP:SYNTH, not OR. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. " --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Dear John Maynard Friedman. I found a citation that comes much nearer to calling him directly a Catholic: Hickson (1884) says "But, staunch and devout Roman Catholic as he was, he [Donough] refused to sanction the extermination ...". Friendly greetings, Johannes Schade (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that is an unambiguous statement and satisfies my concern. Issue resolved. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear Johannes
I see you've been doing a lot of work  on Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty. The article is included in a list mentioned on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica as containing indirect links which would benefit from updating into direct EB1911 wikisource links. At a quick glance (there may be more) I can see two relevant references which are using the Internet Archive:

Atkinson, Charles Francis re Great Rebellion and
Round, John Horace re Baronet
How shall we handle these changes? Shall I go ahead when it's quiet, or would you prefer to do them?
Best wishes  ArbieP (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear ArbieP. Thanks for giving me a warning. I am quite often busy on this article but I can cope with possible edit conflicts. Just go ahead with what you believe you must do. You know well that I object and do not believe these are improvements. Freundliche Grüße, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Dear Johannes  All done. (I hope  found them all) ArbieP (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

On 15 September, Clancarty submitted a petition against John FitzGerald of Enismore concerning the possession of Gallaris, which was granted, as the Journals of the House of Lords (1779) states on page 342, left column, in the entry for the 15 September 1662: "Ordered that John FitzGerald of Enismore, Esq., do deliver the Possession of Gallaris ...". This is an isolated statement that needs to be put into context. It seems reasonable to identify Gallaris with Gallarus on the Dingle peninsula, County Kerry, which originally belonged to the Knight of Kerry. I have not been able to find out who John FitzGerald of Enismore was, possibly a cadet branch of the Knights of Kerry. If Gallaris is Gallarus near Dingle, then Enismore might well be Ennismore Townland that appears in the Dysert Parish,  List of townlands of County Kerry and is situated in the Barony Iraghticonnor (see List of baronies of Ireland),which is the northernmost of the baronies of Kerry. This Ennismore later belonged to William Hare, created Baron Ennismore (1800) and Earl of Listowel (1822). However, there is also an Ennismore near Cork. The main question is of course: by which right could Clancarty claim Gallarus?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johannes Schade (talk • contribs)  14:44, 11 November 2021