# Talk:Domnall Gerrlámhach

This review is transcluded from Talk:Domnall Gerrlámhach/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 14:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Brianann MacAmhlaidh, I will be completing a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any comments or questions in the meantime. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Brianann MacAmhlaidh, first and foremost, I'd like to commend you on a job well done completing this article. Following my review and re-review, I assess this article to exceed criteria for Good Article status. Before passing this article, however, I do have a few comments and questions that must first be addressed. Thank you for your hard work on this article! -- Caponer (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Lede

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede should define the Domnall, establish context, explain why Domnall is notable, and summarize the most important points of his life. Therefore the lede should mention who Domnall scored a victory against for Dublin, so there should be at least a mention of Leinster here.
I also suggest stating who was responsible for his final expulsion from Dublin, and that following his uncle's takeover of Munster, he was disinherited from receiving lands to rule.
Done.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Shadowy strikes me as a bit Wikipedia:COLLOQUIAL, and centuries can be listed by Arabic numeral here rather than being spelled out.
I've changed shadowy to "obscure". I'd like to stick with spelling out the dates.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The excerpt from the folio has been released into the public domain and is therefore admissible for use here.
Otherwise, I assess this section to be well-written and that the content therein is adequately internally-cited below in the prose with references that are reliable and verifiable.
Background

Domnall's father is listed as his self-proclaimed title High King of Ireland, but no mention is initially made of Munster, his indisputable kingdom. I suggest making this clear that he was the monarch of Munster. This would set the stage for the reader when they come upon the first sentence of "Dublin" where Munster power wavered. Was Domnall's father also King of Dublin?
I've reworked things quite a bit. The second paragraph shows that Toirdelbach started off as king in Munster before gaining the high-kingship, and that he installed Muirchertach in Dublin before his death. After his death the paragraph shows that Muirchertach had to struggle to get the kingship of Munster, after which he got control of Dublin.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I suggest wiki-linking Airgíalla in the first paragraph, as it is a kingdom many readers are unaware of.
Done.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Inline citation and Wikipedia:Citing sources, inline citations should be consolidated at the end of sentences and paragraphs.
I've look over those pages. It doesn't say that citations have to be consolidated at the end, just that that's where they generally should go. See this part of the second page WP:INTEGRITY.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Munster should be wiki-linked in the second paragraph. Kingdom of Dublin should also be wiki-linked in the second paragraph, as this is the topic's first mention in the article's main prose.
Done. Also I've used the term 'Kingdom of ...' when the kingdoms are mentioned in the text. I've dropped the 'Kingdom of' part after the first mention.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Might I suggest a map of the kingdoms of Ireland in this section, to provide more context and clarity.
*Done.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Otherwise, I assess this section to be well-written and that the content therein is adequately internally-cited in the prose with references that are reliable and verifiable.
Dublin

This section should be renamed Kingship of Dublin or Kingdom of Dublin, or some other title that more clearly identifies Domnall's association with Dublin.
Done.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The excerpt from the folio has been released into the public domain and is therefore admissible for use here.
Regarding the wavering of Munster power, is this in reference to the power of the kingdom of Munster or the power of the monarch of Munster, or both? This should be made clear in this sentence.
I've overhauled this section quite a bit. How do things read now?
I'm assuming "Munster's misfortunes" refers to the attempted power grabs by Domnall and his uncle to wrest control of the kingdom of Munster.
I've reworked things so that the sentence now specifies that the Leinstermen took advantage of Muirchertach's decline.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
It should be clarified in the first paragraph that Domnall's father was also King of Dublin, to provide context for why it's important to this article that Donnchad mac Murchada of Leinster attempted to seize the Kingdom of Dublin.
I've reworked things things. Duffy left out Donnchad's co-king, and I've added noted how the co-kings had reasons for their actions.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The sentence detailing Munster's victory should begin by mentioning that Munster was victorious in the dispute with Leinster over Dublin, then explaining that it was a remarkable achievement, rather than vice versa.
Done.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Woes strikes me as being a bit Wikipedia:COLLOQUIAL. Perhaps rephrase as "despite Munster's internal conflicts" or "despite Munster's weakened state" or something to those effects.
I've gone with "weakened state".--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Inline citation and Wikipedia:Citing sources, inline citations should be consolidated at the end of sentences and paragraphs.
See above where I noted WP:INTEGRITY.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
13th-century can be written as such here, rather than spelled out.
I'd like to stick spelling out the dates.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
It should be made explicit earlier in this section when Domnall actually becomes King of Dublin, in chronological order, rather than finding out later in the section. While it is spelled out in the second paragraph, I suggest moving this content up a bit.
I'm struggling with this. I think things work best if the discussion of when he became king notes all possibilities. It can't really be discussed until after the battle.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Otherwise, I assess this section to be well-written and that the content therein is adequately internally-cited in the prose with references that are reliable and verifiable.
Death

The excerpt from the folio has been released into the public domain and is therefore admissible for use here.
Per Wikipedia:Inline citation and Wikipedia:Citing sources, inline citations should be consolidated at the end of sentences and paragraphs.
See above where I noted WP:INTEGRITY.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Otherwise, I assess this section to be well-written and that the content therein is adequately internally-cited in the prose with references that are reliable and verifiable.
Ancestry

The family tree is internally-cited and formatted within Wikipedia's accepted ahnentafel standards.
Brianann MacAmhlaidh, thank you for addressing each of my above mentioned comments, questions, and concerns. Your recent edits read beautifully and upon my review and re-review, I find that this article easily exceeds the criteria for Good Article status! Thank you for all your hard work throughout this process and congratulations! -- Caponer (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)