Talk:Brabant Revolution/Archives/2015/January
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Brigade Piron in topic GA Review
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Brabant Revolution. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Untitled
This article need to be translated, and I don't know the template for requesting translation help l santry (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- replaced wikified partial google translate from it wp with request for proper non-google translation שחקן (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Brabantine Revolution → Brabant Revolution – Undoing the recent revision. "Brabantine" (the adjective) has no currency whatsoever in English and all scholarly literature in English uses the term "Brabant Revolution". Ditto the contemporary revolution in Liège, which is referred to by the name of the place, not the adjective. Brigade Piron (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Usage of "Brabant Revolution" in published, academic sources include:
- Encyclopedia Britannica
- The Journal of Belgian History
- Journal of Low Country Studies
- The Role of the Clergy in the Brabant Revolution, 1789-1790
- Museum of Letters and Manuscripts, Belgium
- Other academic usage
And, more broadly on respectable websites:
It's rare in English to have any provincial adjective - in Belgium, it's just too confusing. Relisted. BDD (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC) ---Brigade Piron (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'd also add that Google Books lists 2,140 results for "Brabant Revolution", but only 295 for "Brabantine" ---Brigade Piron (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. While I'm neutral on the move, I would just say that the claim made above that ""Brabantine" (the adjective) has no currency whatsoever in English" is rubbish. I've seen it many times. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- That's fair enough. It's usage was certainly sporadic in the 18/19th century English; I don't think I've seen it in anything more modern. Most of the times you do see it, it's in the works of Francophone/Dutch historians anyway who search for an English approximation of "Brabançonne/Brabantse" However, I still maintain that "Brabant Revolution" is much more common, see the links above.--Brigade Piron (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- My impression was that 'Brabantian' was the adjective, though this may be incorrect. Oreo Priest talk 15:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- That's fair enough. It's usage was certainly sporadic in the 18/19th century English; I don't think I've seen it in anything more modern. Most of the times you do see it, it's in the works of Francophone/Dutch historians anyway who search for an English approximation of "Brabançonne/Brabantse" However, I still maintain that "Brabant Revolution" is much more common, see the links above.--Brigade Piron (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. I prefer adjectives. Even if "Brabant Revolution" is more common, it is not as if the subject is so notable and well-discussed in English as to leave us no leeway. Srnec (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'd agree with you in principal, but in this case, it is very confusing. As I hope I've established above, Brabant is WP:COMMONNAME and there is quite a bit of English-language literature on the subject. To vary from the norm would create more confusion than it's worth! ---Brigade Piron (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support per nom, especially Google Books count. Oreo Priest talk 15:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Brabant Revolution/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: 3family6 (talk · contribs) 03:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Fantastic 3family6! Many thanks for taking on the review! I look forward to your comments. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
- Copyvio check found no violations, but did find a Wikipedia mirror.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Prose is excellent, and even ready for featured status. However, in the final, historical analysis section, there are a few problematic sentences. "Pirenne, a liberal himself, could only explain the defeat of the Vonckists by playing up the economic and social backwardness of the Austrian Netherlands.[47] Made big use of the disgust seen in "enlightened" German traveler's tails to prove this.[48]" - the first sentence has "a liberal himself," which is too repetitive considering "a nationalist himself" is given a few sentences up. The second sentence is incomplete, and poor prose considering the quality of the rest of it. Perhaps reword as "Pirenne, as a liberal, could only explain the defeat of the Vonckists by playing up the economic and social backwardness of the Austrian Netherlands.[47] He supported this viewpoint by referencing the disgust seen in "enlightened" German traveler's tails."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- That's a good point. One of my notes which sneaked into the final version I'm afraid. I've dealt with it now.—Brigade Piron (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
- Follows MOS very well. This article is almost ready for FA status.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- The reference sections are very nicely designed, and consistent in format.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:
- Well-cited and referenced. However, there's one sentence in the "Austrian rule" section that I think needs a citation, especially since the entire paragraph has no citations: "Within the states themselves, the "traditional" independence was considered extremely important and figures such as Jan-Baptist Verlooy had even begun to claim the linguistic unity of Flemish dialects and a badge of a national identity in Flanders."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Good catch. Should be sorted.—Brigade Piron (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well-cited and referenced. However, there's one sentence in the "Austrian rule" section that I think needs a citation, especially since the entire paragraph has no citations: "Within the states themselves, the "traditional" independence was considered extremely important and figures such as Jan-Baptist Verlooy had even begun to claim the linguistic unity of Flemish dialects and a badge of a national identity in Flanders."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- C. No original research:
- All content is referenced and verifiable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- All major aspects of the Revolution are covered.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- B. Focused:
- Article is focused very nicely on the subject.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Very fair discussion, covers all major perspectives.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No history of edit warring, or other disputes of any kind.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- No copyvios. There were several images that needed a parameter specifying their public domain status in the US, so I went ahead and fixed it.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for that!—Brigade Piron (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- No copyvios. There were several images that needed a parameter specifying their public domain status in the US, so I went ahead and fixed it.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- Captions are relevant and useful.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall: Just a few issues with a few sentences, which I've noted above.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
- Apart from a few, minor issues, I think this article is ready to be a featured article, not just a good one.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Fantastic! That's very kind of you. I hope I've dealt with the points highlighted. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Everything looks good now. Passed!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Many thanks indeed! A real pleasure to work with you! —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Apart from a few, minor issues, I think this article is ready to be a featured article, not just a good one.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
