Talk:Batavian Republic/GA1

GA Review

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

I will be happy to review this article for GAC. H1nkles (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Prose is average, could be better.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Lead is especially lacking and should be upgraded.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   I added to some assertions that should be cited. There are several paragraphs that need citations.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Watch POV statements

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   check clean up tags on photos.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Lead

• An article of this length should have a full three paragraph lead. See WP:LEAD for the requirements. This will have to be expanded before I can pass the article. H1nkles (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead has been expanded, as requested. No wikilinks and citations have been included, as these would duplicate links and citations elsewhere in the article.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Background

• wikilink Flanders Campaign since you refer to it in your further information section.

This "further" tag was gratuitously included; now deleted.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I put it back, with the required wikilink, because I think that it has merit after all.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Watch NPOV in this section, example - "Due to the disastrous[1] Fourth Anglo-Dutch War...." disastrous for for whom? "...the Patriots joined in, hoping to liberate their country from its authoritarian yoke." You're writing from the perspective of the Patriots, it should be more neutral in tone. H1nkles (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"disatrously for the Dutch"; there already was a justifying citation for this claim, as for the qualification "authoritarian" If anybody took the viewpoint of the Patriots, it was Schama, whose narrative is followed. The Patriots may have had a point. Thomas Jefferson, a contemporary, shared this point of view of the Orangist regime.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Stages in the history of the new republic

• I added a to the following sentence, "The fact that the Dutch revolution was not as bloody as the French one had been at times, is (besides the fact that the Terror had already passed by the time of the French invasion) mainly due to the moderation of the Dutch revolutionaries." This needs to be cited.

I'll find the reference or delete the sentence.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this sentence is in a general introduction. It is therefore difficult to retrieve it from Schama, unlike other citations, as I more or less followed Schama's narrative. But this is out of sequence. So I deleted the sentence as it isn't worth the trouble. Maybe I can restore the sentence if I find the reference one of these days.--Ereunetes (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Your "History of the Low Countries" table breaks up the paragraphs in this section and should be reformatted so that the text does not get broken. See wp:access for more information on this. H1nkles (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

These tables are indeed a pest. Everybody drops these darn things into articles without a by-your-leave. I have moved this one out of the way to a place where it does not seem to do harm, but I would prefer to simply delete it, like all the other tables (e.g. the client-states table at the top of the article, that serves no useful purpose in my view). Is there a policy that we have to accept these vanity inserts?--Ereunetes (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Struggle for a constitution

• Another POV statement, "In this force-field the federalists held the upper hand after the unfortunate sudden demise of Paulus (who might otherwise have acted as a unifier)." "Unfortunate" is a value word and should be avoided.

"Unfortunate" deleted.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Does citation 26 in the last paragraph cover all the facts stated in that paragraph? If not then it should be better cited. H1nkles (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Citation 26 does indeed cover the paragraph and not just the percentage of people voting. I have put the latter information into the main text from the note.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The Uitvoerend Bewind

• "Disaffection" used three times in the paragraph, consider rewording.

Two instances reworded. Actually, the repetition was intended as a rhetorical device.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• "The new regime was soon to discover that changes don't easily come about by legislative fiat. The part of the constitution that worked adequately was the experiment with indirect democracy. During the period in which the constitution was in force the system of primary assemblies that elected delegates who voted for the respective organs of government worked efficiently, and kept the voters engaged for a long time. However, exactly because the republic was a genuine democracy, other goals of the regime were less easy to attain. The elections often put people into office that were very much opposed to the unitary state that was now enshrined in the constitution, and to other innovations that it entailed, or in any case were of a conservative inclination." you need to cite this paragraph. H1nkles (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I am on it. Hope to provide the references shortly.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Found it! Fortunately this one was in sequence.--Ereunetes (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• The economic turmoil of the republic should be its own section, add the main article tag in the middle of this section to the top of the new section related to the economics.

I take it the actual objection is against the "Main"-tag in the middle of the section. Nevertheless, I have put in a new sub-subsection, though this has its own downside.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• POV statement, "When he put these sensible reform proposals to the Representative Assembly on September 30, 1799, they met with massive resistance." "Sensible" is a value word that should be avoided. H1nkles (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"Sensible" removed, though I still think the proposals were sensible :-)--Ereunetes (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Anglo-Russian expedition

• The first two paragraphs in this section need in-line citations.

Citations provided.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• The photo in this section has a clean-up tag, it needs an author. Please address this.

The photo apparently is no longer there, or I can't find it. Probably another example of people messing up the article with vanity inserts. In any case, problem solved if it isn't there.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• "with a harebrained scheme in which the Hereditary Prince was to become a kind of constitutional monarch in a constitution on the model of the American Constitution." "Harebrained" not a good word to use, unencyclopedic and POV. H1nkles (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"Unencyclopedic" no less :-) However, if "harebrained" causes offense I'll be happy to remove it.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Intermission

I'm going to stop my review at this point and wait for you to make fixes. There are issues of POV, the Lead, photo clean-up tag, and more citations needed. Once these are addressed I will continue my review. I'll hold the article for one week. H1nkles (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

GA fail

At this point I have held the article for over a week with no response to my list of concerns. So I will have to fail the article. Please address these issues and resubmit. Thanks. H1nkles (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem was that you were talking into a void, I am afraid. Though I watch this page, for some reason I didn't get your GA-related requests. I'll humbly put in a request for reconsideration (though I didn't put in the original request) as soon as I have provided the two references that are still lacking.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have found one of the two missing citations and deleted the sentence near the other. So I think I addressed all your above concerns with the article. I have to say that it is amazing how many distractions were slipped in by no-doubt well-meaning, but expertise-challenged fellow wikipedians. I have deleted a number of spurious "main articles" while I was at it, but I may have missed some trash. Anyway, I hope you'll look at it again.--Ereunetes (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)