Talk:Battle of Valmy/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 22:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I will review, comments to follow over the next couple of days. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Comments as follows:
Lead
- Some parts of the second paragraph belongs in the aftermath or legacy section in a rewritten form. It states a few things that aren't specifically mentioned in the body of the article, e.g. decisive defeat and being "one of the most significant battles of all time." I note that cites aren't required in the lead as it should be summarise the body of the article (which is fully cited).
Background
- The sentence beginning "King Frederick..." probably should be moved to follow the second sentence of this section. This would then give better context as to who the "enemy", referred to later in this section but before the mention of the Prussians/Brunswick.
- In the third sentence of the first para, perhaps insert a time frame to give the reader some context as to approximate timing of events.
- Recite Dumouriez's name in full on first mention and link (MOS allows a link in the lead and first mention in body of article).
Battle
- Recite Kellerman's name in full on first mention and link.
- move the link on artillerists to artillery (in the previous section).
- You mention the size of Kellerman's force but not Dumouriez's.
- Added force estimates from a modern source.
Prussian retreat
- add "which" to follow elan.
Aftermath
- river should be River.
- The third para is a bit short, better to combine it with the second.
Legacy
- You refer to Kellerman's artillery here but not that of Dumouriez. You specifically mention the professionalism of Dumouriez's artillery in the background. It may pay, when first mentioning Kellerman and his forces in the battle section of the article, to clarify the presence of his artillery.
- Fixed wording to reflect the professional nature of all the artillery. SteveStrummer (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
References
- Fourth cite: the author's name is incomplete
- Cites 10 and 22: these include the year, none of the others do.
- Cite 10 should be to the author, not the publication.
- The Horne ref has country of publication, not state/city as the rest of the refs do.
External links
- bullet point the second link.
- Done.
Further reading
- English translation for titles?
Other stuff
- The map image: who owns the copyright and how do we know whether permission to use has been granted, as asserted by the uploader? Licencing tags appear appropriate for the remaining images.
- I'm unsure about the licencing issue, but I'll remove the map to be safe. It's unneeded for now anyway since it goes into details of subcommanders and skirmishes that are not described in the article (yet). SteveStrummer (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- No dablinks.
- Dupe links: Metz, La Marseillaise. Ca Ira would also be a dupe link if the second mention wasn't pipelinked to Ah! ça ira
- external links themselves check out OK.
- Earwig tool checks out OK, the closest is mainly due to the Goethe quote.
Hope that helps, I may have further comments once the above issues have been resolved. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- @SteveStrummer: this all looks really good. I believe the article now meets the all the GA criteria: it broadly covers the subject, is well written, illustrated and is appropriately cited. Passing as GA. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Zawed: Thanks very much for this GA review! SteveStrummer (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)