| Toolbox |
|---|
I've listed this article for peer review because I've put a good deal of effort into it and would appreciate commentary on how to make it accessible to a wide audience, which Celtic Studies is historically lacking, making it subject to all sorts of pseudo historical writing in the public field.
Thanks, Tipcake (talk) 11:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Airship
editI have re-rated the article as C-class. I'll provide comments from a general perspective.
- One area that you could work on is sourcing. Although general references are fine for lower-quality articles, higher review processes such as that for good articles or featured articles require that all material be cited using inline citations. There is quite a lot of material that isn't directly verified with inline citations. This also includes note-type references like number 13.
- Talking about references, another way of making it accessible is by using one of the the standardised citation templates for sourcing. This helps especially people with actual accessibility concerns. You may also want to look at incorporating the suggestions at MOS:DTAB to improve the accessibility of the big table.
- However, in terms of making it accessible to a wide audience (WP:MTAU), I think you have done quite well. There are good explanations for most unfamiliar concepts, and the prose is clear and smoothly organised.
- A popular culture section should definitely be cited using inline citations; it is otherwise liable to getting filled up with WP:TRIVIA. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)