Talk:Battle of Ostrach/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * What is the reason for all of the hidden coordinates throughout the body of the article?
 * If the geocordinates and mapping work properly, a reader should be able to pull up a map which will show the key points on it. If they work properly... Auntieruth55 (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Prelude to battle section. The article says they advanced in four columns, but then gives six different sections. Were some of the columns made up of multiple sections? Also, why has it been chosen to present the figures as a bulleted list? I believe they might read better as prose, but this may be a personal preference.
 * I took it out. It's in the Army of the Danube article, and no need for it to be here. I will eventually fix that text in that, so that it is clearer how they proceeded (Advance guard, 2nd division, and reserve went parallel to it, Ferino crossed at Basel and moved along the north bank of the Rhine, and Lefebvre and the infant terrible went north).Auntieruth55 (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The population of Ostrach, as well as its ownership, is given twice, once in the Prelude to battle section and once in the Locale subsection. I would say that the first instance of this information could be removed.
 * yeah, don't know how that got there twice. Done Auntieruth55 (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Dispositions section. "4.7 miles (8 km) ESE Augsburg," Does this mean "east south east of Augsburg"? Please spell out compass directions; these are not abbreviations that everyone will understand. Also "2 miles (3 km) ESE of Ostrach" in the Initial skirmishing section.
 * got it. Thanks Auntieruth55 (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Same section, the article says "but directed some 50,000 men toward the French position." then gives a bulleted list of groupings that amounts to well over 50,000, then starts another paragraph talking about an additional 10,000 men. Are these all separate groups, or is the first paragraph summarizing the bulleted list? I'm really confused as to what is trying to be conveyed here, as well as again wondering if the information could be better presented as prose. As a third point, all of the information (end of the first paragraph, bulleted list, next paragraph) needs to be referenced. Upon reading further, it seems that this is discussing different sections of troops, but this could be made clearer, and the referencing and bulleted list comments still pertain.
 * I think this is clearer now. What do you think?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Same section, "backing the Austrian main army backed against". What?
 * yes. Fixed that.  pushed them back to the river.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Battle section, "including several their officers officers." What? done
 * Battle monument section. Did the WWII-era French soldiers listen to the priest and reopen it?
 * apparently the priest had the bright idea to call it a chapel, and placed a statue of Mary inside. The source doesn't say if the bright idea worked.   Auntieruth55 (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Please standardize the way that book references are presented. Currently, some have short refs in-line with full info in the Sources section, some have full information both in-line and in the Sources section, and some only have full information in-line, with no entry in the Sources section.
 * First reference to a source is the full citation, after that, it is shortened, to author and page number. Auntieruth55 (talk) 04:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Why are named refs used for some repeated references (i.e. #15) but not for others (i.e. the first three refs in the article are the same, as far as I can see)?
 * Is there a bot that goes through and changes references, because I don't use those shortened templates, and they keep appearing in articles I work on. named refs etc. I think I've taken them all out.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ref #10 needs to note that the ref is in German, as does the Weber work in the Sources section. Please make sure that any other non-English language sources are marked. done
 * I added a fact tag to one spot that I would like to see referenced, plus please see my comments in the prose section for another area that needs referencing.
 * done.


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Are there really no depictions, in paintings, etc, of the battle itself? Images are not required for GA status, and even if they were you already have two pieces of media included, so this is more of a personal curiosity thing.
 * None I could find, either in my books, or online. I had to make a map myself, and didn't do a very good job.  Napoleon wasn't there, so apparently it was of little importance.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Are there really no depictions, in paintings, etc, of the battle itself? Images are not required for GA status, and even if they were you already have two pieces of media included, so this is more of a personal curiosity thing.
 * None I could find, either in my books, or online. I had to make a map myself, and didn't do a very good job.  Napoleon wasn't there, so apparently it was of little importance.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Overall a nice article, but with some prose and reference issues that need to be dealt with. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good with this article, so I am passing the article to GA status. Thank you for the work you have done in response to my suggestions, and thank you also for the quick response. Dana boomer (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)