Talk:Johann Jakob von Wunsch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Johann Jakob von Wunsch has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
May 28, 2010 Good article nominee Listed

image[edit]

looking for an image. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Johann Jakob von Wunsch/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    The first sentence in the lead needs a verb, and the second sentence has two semi-colons (I generally prefer to keep it to one per sentence).
    The first sentence in the Early service section reads a bit odd, specifically the "he", then "it." I know what you mean, but it sounds odd when the subject of the pronoun changed in the sentence. Maybe instead of "it", substitute "the unit" or something like that.
    The line he realized he was a junior lieutenant out prospects - should that be "without prospects" ?
    In that same section, you've got ...was advanced to Rittmeister - that reads a little odd as well. I know you don't want to use "promoted" every time, but maybe "advanced in grade/rank" or something like that, just so we're clear what's going on.
    In the second paragraph of the 7 Years War section, can you clarify what the "light troops" were? You mention above he was given command of a battalion; was it a full brigade?
    B. MoS compliance:
    You've got some mixed tenses that need to be cleaned up (for example, ...surprised von Daun at Hoyerswerda, punching a hole in the Austrian defensive line.)
    Should the quote of the monument inscription be in quotation marks?
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Do you know what his son's name was?
    Not all that necessary. Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
    The lead could be fleshed out a bit with some of the personal information. Remember the lead is supposed to function like an abstract.
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc: }
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

The article has been significantly improved, and I feel it now meets the criteria for GA. Nice work, Ruth. Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

My two cents
  • This article needs a thorough copy edit, as there are missing wording and needlessly repetitive wording. (And that is just reading the first few sentences of the lead.) Regards, Xtzou (Talk) 22:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)