Talk:Campaign of Grodno/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Feitlebaum (talk · contribs) 22:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article needs lots of work in the prose area. All you need to do now is expand the lead. Piotr brought up something that I had missed that is worrying me. I am now requesting a second opinion from a more experienced review.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

1. over the allies which altered for the peace-That wording doesn't make sense.

attacked by a coalation of the three nation Saxony, Russia, and Denmark-Norway-Possible rewording? I'm not sure about that.

to secure her back-I don't know who or what that refers to, should be changed to its or reworded to make it more concise.

Augustus dropped the siege of Riga-Too informal. Should be reworded.

march against Peter I besieging Narva, to save the city.-Possibly Peter I, who was besieging Navra?

met in the battle of Narva ending in a decisive Swedish victory which crippled the Russian army greatly-Needs some sort of rewording.

another Swedish victory, however, without the decisive outcome-Decisive according to whom? Should be reworded.

There a lot of other things that need to be reworded before this becomes GA-status. If you don't know which other instances there may be, please comment here or on my talk page.

It looks a lot better. Thanks for your copyediting work, Volunteer Marek!

1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   The lead needs major expansion for an article of this size.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   The reference section looks good.

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   Lots of citations. Good job with that! Piotr's issue concerned this area.Just fixed.

   C. No original research:

   No original research as far as I can tell.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   I would like some expansion, but this article does cover all the major aspects of the conflict.

   B. Focused:

   This article remains focused on its subject.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   It seems to offer roughly equal coverage to both sides.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   This article's main contributor seems to be the nominator, with a small edit or two from other users.

6. 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:

   All of the images are from Commons and are free.

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

   Perhaps you could expand those image captions a bit; otherwise, they look pretty good.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If anybody disagrees with me, I will certainly consider your opinion. Hopefully someone else will catch something I didn't.

Happy editing!

Working on the prose... Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I did a thorough - but "one pass" - copy edit of the article and expanded the lede a little bit. Can we have an update when possible? Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment by Piotrus: Wikipedia cannot be used as a source, and footnotes should not be confused with references. Please fix Campaign_of_Grodno#cite_note-sweruslosses-2. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment by jrcrin001: I see the problem as mentioned by Piotrus. There are two general formats often used in Wikipedia for references. 1) All source citations inline as references and cited in the reference section. 2) References that cites specific pages of sources (like books) that are called notes that are fully cited in the reference section. You use the latter. When the former (1) is used, this allows for another type of note section for comments and observations. These are in essence footnotes. These foot notes do not directly belong in the article or reference section but are often helpful to the reader. For an example, please see: Louis H. Carpenter#Notes. I hope this helps. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to get that fixed either by removing the footnote (I'm not sure it's necessary) or by following jrcrin001's suggestion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The reference was just fixed. Congrats to everyone, especially Imonoz and VoluteerMarek! Feitlebaum (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)