Talk:Sieges of Taunton/GA1
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 17:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Looks interesting. I'll read through and start the review proper later. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- A really great piece of work. Some minor points below (feel free to challenge if you disagree, I won't be offended!), and a couple of quick questions before its then ready for GA. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Nicely done - and promoted! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Well-written:
(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;
- "Taunton, in Somerset..." - I'd advise "The town of Taunton, in Somerset," as non-English residents may not know if it is a town, place, hill etc., and it saves them clicking on the link.
- "the blockade was conducted from 1–2 miles away" - could do with a metric equivalent, as you've used later on.
- "The Royalists established the second, and bloodiest, siege in late March 1645, initially under Sir Richard Grenville. " - you've repeated "established" here; could you use "began" instead?
- "in the face of a Parliamentarian army " - would "Parliamenatarian relief army" make this even clearer?
- "marched his army to Taunton's relief on 9 July." - would "marched his army to relieve Taunton on 9 July" be more natural?
- "consisting of eighteen regiments" - minor, but MOS would have this as "18"
- The MOS states "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words (16 or sixteen)". Harrias talk 07:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- " reclaiming Dorchester and Weymouth" - repetition of "reclaim" - "retaking"?
- "Robert Morris, in The Sieges of Taunton 1644–1645 suggests that Stawell and his men retreated to Bridgwater,[5] but in Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon's The History of the Rebellion, it is claimed that the troops were requisitioned by Prince Maurice during his retreat from Lyme Regis to Plymouth." I'd suggest explaining who these people are in-line, e.g. "The historian Robert Morris, in The Sieges of Taunton 1644–1645 suggests that Stawell and his men retreated to Bridgwater, but in the 17th-century historian Edward Hyde's The History of the Rebellion, it is claimed that the troops were requisitioned by Prince Maurice during his retreat from Lyme Regis to Plymouth."
- "which consisted of around 4,200 infantry troops and 2,000 cavalry" - minor, but you don't need the word "troops" here. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- All done except noted. Harrias talk 07:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
- Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
- A minor, sub-GA piont, but footnote 49 seems to be in a different style to the other books cited.
(b) 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;
- "Robert Morris, in The Sieges of Taunton 1644–1645 suggests that Stawell and his men retreated to Bridgwater,[5] but in Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon's The History of the Rebellion, it is claimed that the troops were requisitioned by Prince Maurice during his retreat from Lyme Regis to Plymouth." - a quick question. Is Hyde still considered a reliable source? The wording gives equal balance here to Morris and Hyde, which may be right, but I thought I'd query it.
- I don't feel qualified enough to judge Hyde too much as a source. He was clearly biased, and also let his personal relationships cloud his writing, but I felt it fair to offer his record of things as well. I could try and reword slightly to show that he may not be reliable? Harrias talk 07:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think now that the text clarifies who he is, that's probably OK from my perspective. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
(c) it contains no original research.
- None found so far. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- "In early 1645, Blake sent a number of raiding parties out from Taunton, and according to Hyde (a Royalist); " - is the point about Hyde being a royalist (and so presumably potentially biased) mentioned in the original cited work, or is this commentary that we've added? Hchc2009 (talk) 07:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- I added it to provide context to the statement. I can provide a reference for it easily enough if you think that would help? Harrias talk 07:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- My advice would be to strip out the "(a Royalist)" in that case, as it is probably OR in the way it is being used in this instance. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Hchc2009: Done. Harrias talk 13:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
- Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
- Appears neutral. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Illustrated, if possible, by images:
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
- Under the MOS, the three captions in the main text should end with periods (.) as they are complete sentences. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Hchc2009: I assume you're still going with this? Harrias talk 18:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yep, sorry, delayed by some long days at work. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- No worries, I was just double checking. I didn't think I was that good at writing articles, but you know. No rush on it, today aside I'm not really about as much as I'd like at the moment anyway. Harrias talk 18:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
@Hchc2009: Thanks for the review. I think I've responded in one way or the other to each of the points raised. Harrias talk 07:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)