Talk:Siege of Middelburg (1572–1574)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 05:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC) I'll take this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Good Article Checklist

• Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
• Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research.
• Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
• Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
• Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
• Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Disambig links: Siege of Middelburg (1572–1574) links to 1 redirect which point back.
• Reference check: No issues

Specific prose issue: "...on had recently been strengthened by a large number of untrained recruits..." - Mind fixing that wording? Comments: This article is very short for a two year long siege, but the content is lacking in quite a few areas. First of all, the lead is far too short to be an effective introduction, a WP:LEAD issue. The "Background" through the entire article needs to be copyedited. A major concern is the lack of proper comma usage and other minor details that add up to an issue with the prose itself. It is so prevalent that almost every paragraph contains at least one of these issues. Now, I know nothing of this particular topic and the readers should be expected to know very little as well - making this article, suffering from a lack of context, to have an additional problem. I reviewed this article from a hard copy, so no linking, and I check for "self contained", but even still, this article lacks the details from the command to the movements. The losses incurred, while noted, were not dealt with in the body text. I'll place this on hold for fixes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave this open since no activity for a week may be due to other interests. I'll leave it up for another week. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

As there has been no activity, I will fail this as the issues are unresolved. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about this completely forgot about it since dealing with another GA nom. ChrisWet (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Well... I'll reopen it for another week. Okay? :) ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I will put this in a for Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors request but will sort out some of the issues. ChrisWet (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed the first issue outlined changed to a number and removed large. Improved the background by added more of the causes of the revolt. ChrisWet (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the copyeditors have a large backlog, might have to put this on hold or fail it for now. Thanks. ChrisWet (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)