Wikipedia

Talk:Prince Rupert of the Rhine/GA1

< Talk:Prince Rupert of the Rhine
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Alexcoldcasefan in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago44 comments3 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Sabrebd (talk · contribs) 12:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I will be reviewing this article over the next few days. Opening impressions are that this is high quality work, well illustrated and largely well sourced. The only immediate issue I can see is the lack of sourcing for the tv, film and literature section. This would also probably be better as prose rather than a list under WP:EMBED, not least because it stops fly by additions of trivial instances. I will give detailed feedback over the next few days.--SabreBD (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

My style of review is to go through the prose in detail and make suggestions, please note a lot of these minor points are advisory and would not be a reason for failing GA. However, they will probably come up at FA.--SabreBD (talk) 09:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

  • Well-written:
    • (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    • A general point. Is this article using British English - there seems to be a mixture of spellings.
    • Lead:
    • Very minor, but for consistency the English Civil War needs dates. Otherwise the lead is clear and balanced.
    • Early life and exile:
    • Opening section: born "during the Thirty Years' War": given that its thirty years long this does not help a lot. I would delete. However, there is a need here to explain that these events are the beginning of the TYW, as this would not be clear to a casual reader.
    • date of the battle of the White Mountain would be useful (it reads as if 1619 not 1620)
    • "By the early 1630s this appeared closer than ever". Some redundancy here. Could be just "By the early 1630s this appeared close". This and the two surrounding sentences need some simplification.
    • battle of Lutzen does not need a pipe link. WP:EGG suggests the whole phrase should be linked or this looks like a link to the place not the battle.
    • Teenage years
    • At the moment an overlink of Thirty Years' War, Linz and English Civil War in this article
    • "As time went on" - beginning of final paragraph. A redundant phrase. I would delete.
    • Too many alsos in the final paragraph.
    • Career during the First English Civil War
    • "He had considerable success during the early years of the war, his drive, determination and experience of European techniques bringing him early victories" Some redundancy here (two lots of early)
    • "finally found" - just found will do
    • Powicke Bridge, worth mentioning that this is usually seen as the first real encounter of the war - a casual reader might not know this.
    • Added.
    • "Some of the weaknesses of Rupert's character began to display themselves, however, when he quarrelled with his fellow infantry commander, Lindsey." The however should be at the start of the sentence or removed (otherwise it reads like the second clause contradicts the first).
    • Final paragraph - "in fact" - redundant.
    • Later stages, 1644-46
    • "Rupert had quarrelled with Lindsey at Edgehill:" not sure why we need this again and it overcomplicates the sentence. but perhaps I am missing something.
    • "Digby was a classic courtier, with a "darting wit and fluent tongue";" Probably enough to know he is a favourite.
    • On the Marston Moor campaign, probably too many adjectives: "suddenly", "surprise". "With his sheer speed" might be seen as hyperbole.
    • I would have a comma after Leicester and before "but".
    • Is it worth saying that the battle destroyed the king's main army (at least the infantry)? Might help casual readers understand the significance of the loss.
    • "Earlier interpretations of this event have focused" tense confusion, should be "Earlier interpretations of this event focused"
    • Reputation
    • Boye, poodle and Marston Moor have already been linked,
    • Career during the Second English War and Interregnum
    • Pipe link Holy Roman Emperor to Ferdinand III. Ferdinand has already been linked, so this may count as an overlink.
    • Digby, Louis XIV, Thirty Year's War are all overlinked.
    • "steadily losing vessels to their pursuers;" seems to be a sentence ending in a semi-colon.
    • "The second phase of the campaign then began, as Rupert crossed back into the Atlantic and, during 1651, cutting west to the Azores capturing vessels as he went." - a confusing sentence, may be better to break this up, e.g.: "The second phase of the campaign then began. Rupert crossed back into the Atlantic and, during 1651, cut west to the Azores, capturing vessels as he went."
    • The next sentence also has a lot of clauses and should probably be split in two.
    • "catching Malaria", normally it would be "contracting Malaria"
    • "By bad luck, one of Rupert's notes". Delete the redundant "By bad luck
    • Career following the Restoration
    • Royal Navy is linked twice
    • "The French role in the conflict proved a problem when Charles turned to the appointment of an admiral, however; Rupert's objection to the French alliance was well known, and accordingly the King appointed the Duke of York to the role instead" A bit unclear, may need breaking into two sentences.
    • "landing an amphibious army" its an amphibious operation or just landing an army. The bit about planning seems redundant and this sentence should probably be split in two.
    • "The result was the Battle of Schooneveld in June and the Battle of Texel in August" - results were?
    • "selection of officer" officers? This sentence could also split up for clarity.
    • Later life
    • "his primary attentions to North America", could just be - "his attention turned to North America"
    • "although Hughes appears to have held out reciprocating" should be "although Hughes appears to have held out from reciprocating"
    Too many "ultimatelys" in the death section.
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
    • Early life and exile:
    • "enjoying the famous palace gardens": famous may be seen as WP:PUFF and thinking about this, I can see the library is important, but are the gardens that significant to his late life?
  • Verifiable with no original research:
    • (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    • Generally fine. A minor point is that p. should be followed by a space according to every example at WP:CITE. Normally all Harvard references give a date, but not really a GA issue.
    (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); and
    • Early life and exile:
    • No citation for Rupert's height.
    • Teenage years
    • His refusal to convert at the end of the penultimate paragraph of section and the end of the final paragraph are not covered by citations
    • Career during the First English Civil War
    • "an image which has endured over the years" is not covered by a citation.
    • Discussion of advance to London. Does Wedgewood discuss both views? She is the only source. From memory, this debate continues after her work. I am fine with who is saying what being clear from footnotes, but at FA someone may call "who" if it is not clear in the text.
    • Career following the Restoration
    • No citation for Battle of Solebay.
    • No citation for Rupert's retirement.
    • Later life
    • Obviously statements tagged for lack of citations here need them.
    (c) it contains no original research.
    • Not an issue
  • Broad in its coverage:
    • (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    • Very good coverage
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
    • Seems balanced to me
  • Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    • Fine
  • Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    • Cannot see any
  • 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
    • Most are copyright free. File:Prince Rupert, the Great Executioner.jpg needs transferring to the commons
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
    • These are fine.
    There are just the above minor style issues and some citations to add. I can see no other major issues, so I am putting this on hold for now.--SabreBD (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
    I hope that now all minor issues are fixed, I have personally attended to them. Greets, --Alexcoldcasefan (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
    Add topic
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prince_Rupert_of_the_Rhine/GA1&oldid=1178735783"