Talk:Battle of Montemaggiore/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 12:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC) I'll do this one. Will get started shortly. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	But see below comment
	2b. 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).	see query about Robert Guiscard
	2c. it contains no original research.	see query about Robert Guiscard
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	needs more background and context, see comments
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	but too little detail
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	OK
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Fine, not much movement at all since nomination.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	OK
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	OK
	7. Overall assessment.	on hold for seven days for points to be addressed

Comments

• "offence" is not the right word in this context. Suggest "Lombard-Norman force"?
• some more background and context needs to be added to the article in general, as well as clarification of terms unfamiliar to the layperson. Some examples are:
  • The "Norman adventurer William Iron Arm"
  • an explanation that the Catepan was a Byzantine provincial governor or that the Catepanate was a Byzantine province
  • more information about the Lombard-Norman revolts and why they occurred (in Background), including why they were allied
• which line were the fresh troops in?
• the force is variously described as Lombard-Norman and Norman. Suggest it be treated consistently unless there is a specific reason
• the bit about what the Norman knights did after the battle should go in the Aftermath, not Background
• more information about who sent the Catepan to Sicily and why would be helpful. Was he demoted because he lost, that's what I'm assuming, but it needs clarification.
• add Norman conquest of southern Italy#Mercenary service as a link in the lead and the body (obvious there is some sourced material there that could be used to flesh out the Background)
• who says there were 2,000 knights? Useful detail, particularly a sense of when that information was recorded and by whom.
• more information about the result of the battle of Montepeloso would be useful. Did the Lombard-Norman's win, for example?
• a clearer chronology of the increase in Lombard-Norman forces would help. At present, the numbers at Olivento are intertwined with the numbers at Montemaggiore.
• the Rogers citation (#5) should be in the same format as the others
• Rogers appears (from snippet view of p.68, to say Robert Guiscard commanded the Normans at Montemaggiore. Can you clarify?
• the use of "great" and "particularly great" is a bit WP:WEASELLY, suggest you modify the language
• you appear to have utilised most if not all of the sources I could locate on the subject, so despite the fact the article is quite short, I believe that with the suggested expansion of background and some additional context, it could be GA if the other comments are also addressed.

Placing on hold for seven days for these comments to be addressed. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Have just discovered that this nom has been withdrawn. Leaving as is for future reference. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)