Talk:Battle of Winchelsea/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LeGabrie (talk · contribs) 20:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) 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:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(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; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (focused)	Perhaps the "Background" chapter is a bit over-detailed (fixed)	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Personally, I would add one more image (like perhaps a map showing the geo-political situation in 1350), as the article is relatively long. Just my opinion tho. (fixed)	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	A fine article covering the battle, its context and aftermath in good detail. Fully deserving of displaying the green plus.

Discussion

I will give it a shot. LeGabrie (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@LeGabrie: Images. You are quite right, it needs more images. I have no idea why I didn't see that. Thanks. Sadly there is no map from 1350 available. Anyway, the situation was so fluid that it may be confusing anyway. I have added one from the start of the war which shows the position of Gascony. And another image which seems relevant. What do you think?

I have also expanded the aftermath a bit, to follow up the key characters. (Referencing is ongoing.) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Excellent, the new images fit and enhance the article very well. I left a comment concerning the focus of the article. LeGabrie (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@LeGabrie: Yes, possibly. OK, definitely. I have trimmed. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild:Better, though I wouldn't delete the third paragraph entirely. I would keep a trimmed version of it and add it to the second paragraph. Perhaps something like this:

"After the English defeated the French at Crécy and conquered the major port city of Calais, fighting was limited to raids and guerrilla warfare." LeGabrie (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@LeGabrie: Like this? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Congratulations, yet another green plus in your wide collection. LeGabrie (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit: One more thing I just noticed is that in the lede it says "In spite of this success English trade and ports had little respite from French, and French sponsored, naval activity." Can you also include this info in the main text? LeGabrie (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@LeGabrie: Something like:

Joined by French ships they continued to harass English shipping for the rest of the autumn before withdrawing to Sluys to winter. The following spring the Channel was still effectively closed to English shipping unless strongly escorted... [the battle's] lack of effect on the operational or strategic situation.

Which is already there . In the Aftermath. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Did the closure of the Channel also affect the trade with Gascony? LeGabrie (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@LeGabrie: D'oh! I see what you mean. Very good point. I am glad that you are on the ball. How's this? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Very good. I think I am done now. LeGabrie (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@LeGabrie: Thank you, I appreciate your work on this. I had thought that the article was in pretty good shape. Which just goes to show that you should never trust your own judgement of your writing. You picked up several things which definitely needed improving. Thanks again. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: The article still isn't listed as GA. Seems like I missed a step after putting the "y" into "Result"? LeGabrie (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@LeGabrie: No, you did that fine. What to do is explained here. Let me know if you would like me to do it for you. (I remember the first time I passed a GAN it took me several attempts to get it right.) Gog the Mild (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Done. LeGabrie (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)