Talk:Heinrich Sigismund von der Heyde/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 22:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I will review, comments to follow over next few days. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, there are quite a few issues here but most will be sorted with a copyedit.

Infobox

• The place of birth in the "Born" field has spacing issues  Done
• Seven Years War is mentioned in the infobox but isn't explicitly stated in the body of the article  Done
• Awards: is being listed on the statue considered to be an award? It's a commemoration....? and yes I'd consider it an award

Lead

• Kolberg is linked on the second mention, not the first Done
• His exact date of birth not stated (it is in the infobox)  Done
• "the Order Pour le Merite": shouldn't it be the "the Order of Pour le Merite"? Not really. People want to add Order, but it really is just Pour le Merite....

Family

• "...born in 1703 Schacksdorf in...": there's a missing word in there. Also I suggest putting some context for what Schacksdorf is, since you later refer to "heir to Schacksdorf"  Done

Military career

• The 2nd sentence of the 1st paragraph mentions a series of ranks; these should all be lower case. I suggest that these be presented more in sentence style for better flow. Also, chief of staff of what?  Done
• "In 1741 he received his first Grenadier company": received? I assume you mean given command of... Done
• No context for "There must then have been inconsistencies between him and General Leopold von Anhalt-Dessau." I appreciate sources may not be clear on the "inconsistencies" but who is Anhalt-Dessau to Heyde?  Done
• link Königsberg, Kolberg  Done

Sieges of Kolberg

• "became a deputy commander, and on 3 October 1758," deputy commander of what? The town or a unit? Also, the way the sentence is structured suggests a relationship between the promotion and the attack on 3 October.  Done
• "He tried": unusual language, suggest "his forces made"  Done
• King who? Suggest linking as well  Done
• "the second siege took place". I suggest for clarity and context amending the first sentence of the first paragraph to "commencing his first siege..."  Done
• "Sweden and Russia included the fortress": included?  Done
• "the Austrians, at which the Austrians"; repeated usage of Austrians and furthermore, I thought the besieging forces were Swedish/Russian. Where did the Austrians come from? clarified
• "image of General Werner, one with the image of the Colonel Heyde"; no need for the ranks in this sentence  Done
• "Friedrich wrote: I am not infallible; in this man I have been greatly wrong.": who is Friedrich and why was he greatly wrong about Heyde?
• "promoted o the rank of ": typo in there  Done

Final siege and captivity

• "3 3 September 1761": repeated numbers  Done
• "the Friedrich Eugen of Württemberg"; this is a name not a title so "the" is not appropriate  Done
• "but he too struggled": who else was struggling with supplies?  Done
• "preparing storms": storms?  Done
• "The troops under General Dubislav von Platen.." No antecedence for "The troops", some context is required  Done
• I don't think it necessary to use italics for emphasis  Done
• "the Duke's troops"; who is the Duke (unless it is Friedrich, but then you will need to clarify that they are the same)Friedrich is the King. I think it's clearer now.
• "ended the Russia's"; "the"?  Done
• "Heyde was reinstated.."; in this sentence, Heyde's name is stated twice. The second usage could be "he". Also reinstated to what?  Done
• "in Königsberg in the fortress of Friedrichsburg"; in the first paragraph of the military career section it is stated the fortress is near Konigsberg not in it
• "Marienkirche of Kolberg"; link this or provide a translation of Marienkirche  Done
• "Kolberg, broke"; replace the comma with and, the two are linked  Done

Sources

• Need to ensure formatting of all sources are consistent Done
• Note 4: place of publication? Also, the year of publication is stated twice  Done
• Note 5: Shouldn't the obit link be part of the title or chapter?  Done
• issue with the presentation of the link for note 6, and what does np mean? no publisher) written out

That's it for now, I may have more comments once the above issues have been addressed. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• thank you @Zawed:! auntieruth (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Auntieruth55: Hi, just resuming this review. Reviewing your changes, they look good. I like the use of the box for his promotions. I have made a few edits, check you are OK with these. I realised I didn't check the images first time so have done this; they look to have appropriate tags. One final issue: the sentence "Heyde, deployed his approximately troops..." is missing the number of troops. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
• :*thank you @Zawed:! added 700....he didn't have a large force! thanks much, your tweaks look good. Cheers, auntieruth (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I'm satisfied that this meets GA standard. Passing now. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)