Talk:Louis des Balbes de Berton de Crillon, 1st Duke of Mahón/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) 15:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll start this review in the next 24 hours. auntieruth (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Prioryman:

• The lead does not have links to such spaces as Kingdom of Spain, British, French. Etc. Probably should have that. I suggest also that you include some of the wars he fought in, War of Polish Succession, War of Austrian Succession, etc. Also, I admired its succinct style (the lead), put it is possibly too succinct.

• I've added links to the wars, and expanded the lead a bit. Prioryman (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• was he actually appointed brigadier, or did the appointment function at the level of today's brigadier? And perhaps change the heading on Schloss Spangenberg to conquered or captured by Crillon, rather than "taken." MOdern usage could confuse taken with the photograph. I know, it's stupid. Please humor me.

• The sources just say appointed brigadier. It seems to have been equivalent to a senior colonel in today's terms (see Brigadier#Pre-revolutionary France). I've amended the caption as requested. Prioryman (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• I clarified when and where he was injured (Battle of Rossbach) and put the citation in.
• probably could change wording on When he was asked to surrender, Crillon told the enemy general that .... change enemy general...The grand duke was Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor, right? or not? that should be linked, and confirmed. auntieruth (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• The wording is a direct translation of the (French) source - see here. It doesn't specify who the enemy general mentioned was. I haven't attempted to make a guess as I don't have information on who that might have been. Prioryman (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• okay, although I've linked Grand Duke of Tuscany.

Grand Duke of Tuscan: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:

@Prioryman: shall I put this on hold or will you get to it this weekend.