Talk:Brabant Revolution/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: 3family6 (talk · contribs) 03:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic 3family6! Many thanks for taking on the review! I look forward to your comments. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
Copyvio check found no violations, but did find a Wikipedia mirror.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prose is excellent, and even ready for featured status. However, in the final, historical analysis section, there are a few problematic sentences. "Pirenne, a liberal himself, could only explain the defeat of the Vonckists by playing up the economic and social backwardness of the Austrian Netherlands.[47] Made big use of the disgust seen in "enlightened" German traveler's tails to prove this.[48]" - the first sentence has "a liberal himself," which is too repetitive considering "a nationalist himself" is given a few sentences up. The second sentence is incomplete, and poor prose considering the quality of the rest of it. Perhaps reword as "Pirenne, as a liberal, could only explain the defeat of the Vonckists by playing up the economic and social backwardness of the Austrian Netherlands.[47] He supported this viewpoint by referencing the disgust seen in "enlightened" German traveler's tails."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. One of my notes which sneaked into the final version I'm afraid. I've dealt with it now.—Brigade Piron (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Follows MOS very well. This article is almost ready for FA status.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:
The reference sections are very nicely designed, and consistent in format.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:
Well-cited and referenced. However, there's one sentence in the "Austrian rule" section that I think needs a citation, especially since the entire paragraph has no citations: "Within the states themselves, the "traditional" independence was considered extremely important and figures such as Jan-Baptist Verlooy had even begun to claim the linguistic unity of Flemish dialects and a badge of a national identity in Flanders."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. Should be sorted.—Brigade Piron (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

C. No original research:
All content is referenced and verifiable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
All major aspects of the Revolution are covered.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B. Focused:
Article is focused very nicely on the subject.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Very fair discussion, covers all major perspectives.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
No history of edit warring, or other disputes of any kind.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
No copyvios. There were several images that needed a parameter specifying their public domain status in the US, so I went ahead and fixed it.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that!—Brigade Piron (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Captions are relevant and useful.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overall: Just a few issues with a few sentences, which I've noted above.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pass or Fail:
Apart from a few, minor issues, I think this article is ready to be a featured article, not just a good one.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic! That's very kind of you. I hope I've dealt with the points highlighted. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good now. Passed!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks indeed! A real pleasure to work with you! —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]