![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The conventional name for this period seems to be Early Christian Ireland (as used by Charles-Edwards) or, if it is combined with the Viking Age, Early Medieval Ireland. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
This is one of the worst articles I have EVER read! Fergananim 20:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Criticism about the article from various sources has been taken to heart, consequently rewriting is going on. As always in Wikipedia, products are personal and written to the best of the authors ability. Criticism about factuals is most welcome, additions of new content is most welcome too. Additional text and illustration will be coming, they are under work.
Comment to mr. Angus McLellan: An alternative era name should be acceptable - but the current title will be changed and the title will be put in a chapter top.
Comment to mr. Ferganim: Some rewritings will be done in the next days, so I hope for a new comment from You whether the present text has been improved at least a little by early October. Author —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
A lot of this article seems to be based on very old Scholarship (based on the Skene book from 1889 ?) which is clear in statements like "Irishmen of the age are a mostly robust and hardy people, high as low live a hard life where it takes strength to survive" which is filled with the type of hyperbole found in really old histories, but which modern historians would be hesitant to touch. I'll be back later to help, I hope. Buirechain 14:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buirechain ( talk • contribs)
Folks, I am sorry but seeing as there has been virtually no improvment in thhis article over the past several months, I feel I must greatly edit and reduce it. I applaud the motives and industry of the original author, but it is simply not up to standard. Fergananim 16:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Having skimmed the article in its present state, I'm really not sure what to do about this. The article is far below standard, contains dubious facts and has an overall incoherent presentation. Some sections appear just as encycpopedic as the history sections in Age of Empire. So what should I do - the easiest would of course be adding tons of[citation needed], I'm not sure how helpful that would be. Any thoughts on how to improve this? Finn Rindahl ( talk) 14:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)