Talk:Battle of Fredericksburg/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 19:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Basic GA criteria[edit]

Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch (e.g., "awesome" and "stunning").
Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
No original research.
No copyright violations or plagiarism.
Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
Neutral.
Stable.
Illustrated, if possible.
Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

I'll be happy to review this article. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a quick first read and I think the article is interesting. There are no apparent grounds for immediate failure as I see no obvious evidence of copyvio and the article is stable – there have been just 100 edits in the last eighteen months and only two of those were at all significant. I'll commence detailed reading shortly and come back to this page as and when there's more to be said. I prefer to deal with minor fixes like typos, spelling, grammar and clarifications myself. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should have added above that I'm impressed by the range and variety of images in the article, the credit for which goes to former editor User:Hlj. As far as I can tell, the majority are public domain and the rest are Hlj's own work. The maps he has created are very good. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Summary[edit]

I think I've seen enough now and I must fail the review because of verification issues. What typically occurs is that there is a multi-citation group at the end of a paragraph and I suppose that one of the components (or part of one) is the source for a given statement or quotation within the paragraph, but there is no certainty of that. An example of this syndrome is the last paragraph of the Movement to battle section which includes a lengthy quotation that is not directly cited, the paragraph ending with <ref>O'Reilly, pp. 51–52; Eicher, p. 398; Goolrick, pp. 39–40; Esposito, map 72; Marvel, pp. 169–70.</ref> There must be about thirty similar cases. Citations need to be added individually to the appropriate sentences, not presented in a block at the end of each paragraph. There are a few other paragraphs and statements which are completely uncited and I've flagged those.

Given the difficulty which these citation groupings present, I don't think it is worth placing the review on hold. I've decided to fail the review which is a shame because the article is fine in many other respects, especially the images. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]