Talk:Battle of Sluys/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sp33dyphil (talk · contribs) 10:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for picking this up.
 * No problem.

Some comments:
 * Missing page numbers for references no. 2 and 3.
 * Gah! The umpteenth time I have forgotten to check the infobox. It is easier for me to replace the source with one I have to hand, there being no scholarly debate over the figures, so I have.


 * Missing page numbers for reference no. 27.
 * Done.


 * Also, just out of interest, could you please give the quote for ref. no. 23?
 * Ah ha! A reference I inherited and accepted IGF. Burne seems to confirm it and it matches what I have previously read. However, the nuance does not match the text of the article, which I have edited accordingly. The source, which I consider to be reliable on bows of the period, actually states "The crossbow of the time... was probably not capable of much more than 200 yards." However "By the time of Agincourt there is no doubt that crossbows could reach something like 400 yards, and outrange longbows". I had not realised that improvements in crossbow technology had moved so quickly. Apparently it was due to the introduction of the steel bow. On longbows "effective bow range can exceed 300 yards".
 * Ah I see. Yeah it sounds like the improvements took place really quickly.


 * "fighting platforms the English man manoeuvred. to" → "fighting platforms, the Englishmen manoeuvred to" --Sp33dyphil (talk) 02:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops. Done.


 * I know this does not impact on whether the article is GA status, but I think the lead section is too short. Or maybe the two paragraphs could be merged? What do you think? --Sp33dyphil (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that you are quite right. I have expanded it a little. What do you think now? Gog the Mild (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think that's better. --Sp33dyphil (talk) 02:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: