Talk:Battle of Stockach (1799)/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi! I have elected to review this article against the Good article criteria, an should have my initial comments posted up in few hours. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have now completed a review of this article and am placing it on hold pending the resolution of the issues outlined below. However, it is a rather good article and with a few tweaks should meet the GA status. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- Lead and infobox:
- a (prose):
Done::: Dates should be delinked.
Done::: There is inconsistency in the capitalisation of "army" in relation to nations. For example, both "Austrian Army" and "Austrian army" are used. Please pick one and use it throughout.
- Background:
Done::: "When the violence erupted in France in 1789" - Could you please clarify what "the violence" actually was? I presume the French Revolution?
Done::: "As the rhetoric grew more strident" - I'm not sure "rhetoric" is used in the correct context here. Rhetoric is related to speach and language ...
- yes, I do mean rhetoric.
- Okay. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- yes, I do mean rhetoric.
Done::: I think the identity of Leopold and Marie Antoinette should be clarified in who they were, instead of forcing the uninformed to click on the wikilinks to find out.
- tried to clarify that
Done::: "Marie Antoinette, and her children, with greater and greater alarm." - I think it would be best if the "greater and greater" was replaced with "increasing" or "ever increasing". Done
Done::: "As the revolution grew more and more radical" - Substitute "more and more" for "further", and how was it radical?
Done::: "The treaty proved difficult to administer; Austria waffled about giving up some of the Venetian territories" - What/which treaty, (the one mentioned in the previous sentence) and what conditions? Also, "waffled" is a not exactly an encyclopaedic term, so I would recommend its replacement with another word.
- Yes, I suppose not. But it's a great word! ;)
- Lol, yes, it is. :) Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I suppose not. But it's a great word! ;)
Done::: "ultimately causing is overthrow, but after 18 months of civil war" - "but" is redundant. Done
- Prelude to Battle:
Done::: Only the first word and proper nouns should be capitalised in level headings.
Done::: Truthfully, I don't think the inclusion of the geographic coordinates in this context add much or are particularly necessary.
Done::: The capitalisation of "Advance Guard" is inconsistent here, with most capitalised but a few not.
Done::: "After an initial day and a half of skirmishing" - should be hyphened in this instance. i.e. day-and-a-half.
Done::: "but this time it was closer to 2:1, instead of almost 3:1" - I would recommend the odds be presented in words rather than numbers.
Done::: Per MoS, dates should not be presented with "th", "rd", "st" or "of", but more singular and succinct, such as 14 October 2009.
cited::: "The general engagement was brutal and bloody." - This is a little peacockish and a little like commentary. Also, it would probably be best to specify or clarify the exact date here. added specific citations for those comments. and fixed date.
cited::: "The attack was so ferocious that the" - "so ferocious" is also a little peacockish, so I would recommend it be tweaked. added citation
- Consequences:
Done::: "Consequences" would probably be best named "Aftermath". Done
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- The same cites should be collapsed into one. For example the cite "Phipps, pp. 49–50.", which is used several times. To do this you type in <ref name="(add what you want to call it, such as "Phipps")">(add deatils of ref here. eg. "Phipps, pp. 49–50.")</ref>. For subsequent times the ref is used you just need to type <ref name="(Same name of ref used previously, such as "Phipps")/>. For an example of an article that uses this, or for further clarification, you might like to have a look at Lewis McGee.
- a (references):
- I don't like this form of citation. It makes additional editing, and adding material, difficult. According to MOS it is the editor's choice.
- I actually find this way easier, but it is your choice, of course. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't like this form of citation. It makes additional editing, and adding material, difficult. According to MOS it is the editor's choice.
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
would be nice:: It would be nice if there was some further detail on the battle, but I can understand if this cannot be done.
- The is nothing on this except Young and Jourdan, that go into the specific details. Some other stuff is starting to appear, but since Napoleon wasn't involved, it's been neglected.
- Fair enought. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
Done:: I would probably increase the size of the images, as they are a little small. Also, it would be best if alt text was added. will do
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Well, I am now satisfied that any and all of my comments have been addressed and this article now meets the Good article criteria, so I am passing it as such. Well done and congratulations! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)