Talk:Battle of Stockach (1799)/GA1

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

Hi! I have elected to review this article against the Good article criteria, an should have my initial comments posted up in few hours. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have now completed a review of this article and am placing it on hold pending the resolution of the issues outlined below. However, it is a rather good article and with a few tweaks should meet the GA status. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

✅::: Dates should be delinked. ✅::: There is inconsistency in the capitalisation of "army" in relation to nations. For example, both "Austrian Army" and "Austrian army" are used. Please pick one and use it throughout. ✅::: "When the violence erupted in France in 1789" - Could you please clarify what "the violence" actually was? I presume the French Revolution? ✅::: "As the rhetoric grew more strident" - I'm not sure "rhetoric" is used in the correct context here. Rhetoric is related to speach and language ...
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Lead and infobox:
 * Background:
 * yes, I do mean rhetoric.
 * Okay. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

✅::: I think the identity of Leopold and Marie Antoinette should be clarified in who they were, instead of forcing the uninformed to click on the wikilinks to find out.
 * tried to clarify that

✅::: "Marie Antoinette, and her children, with greater and greater alarm." - I think it would be best if the "greater and greater" was replaced with "increasing" or "ever increasing".✅ ✅::: "As the revolution grew more and more radical" - Substitute "more and more" for "further", and how was it radical? ✅::: "The treaty proved difficult to administer; Austria waffled about giving up some of the Venetian territories" - What/which treaty, (the one mentioned in the previous sentence) and what conditions? Also, "waffled" is a not exactly an encyclopaedic term, so I would recommend its replacement with another word.
 * Yes, I suppose not. But it's a great word! ;)
 * Lol, yes, it is. :) Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

✅::: "ultimately causing is overthrow, but after 18 months of civil war" - "but" is redundant.✅ ✅::: Only the first word and proper nouns should be capitalised in level headings. ✅::: Truthfully, I don't think the inclusion of the geographic coordinates in this context add much or are particularly necessary. ✅::: The capitalisation of "Advance Guard" is inconsistent here, with most capitalised but a few not. ✅::: "After an initial day and a half of skirmishing" - should be hyphened in this instance. i.e. day-and-a-half. ✅::: "but this time it was closer to 2:1, instead of almost 3:1" - I would recommend the odds be presented in words rather than numbers. ✅::: Per MoS, dates should not be presented with "th", "rd", "st" or "of", but more singular and succinct, such as 14 October 2009. cited::: "The general engagement was brutal and bloody." - This is a little peacockish and a little like commentary. Also, it would probably be best to specify or clarify the exact date here. '''added specific citations for those comments. and fixed date.''' cited::: "The attack was so ferocious that the" - "so ferocious" is also a little peacockish, so I would recommend it be tweaked. added citation ✅::: "Consequences" would probably be best named "Aftermath".✅
 * Prelude to Battle:
 * Consequences:
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The same cites should be collapsed into one. For example the cite "Phipps, pp. 49–50.", which is used several times. To do this you type in . For subsequent times the ref is used you just need to type . For an example of an article that uses this, or for further clarification, you might like to have a look at Lewis McGee.
 * I don't like this form of citation. It makes additional editing, and adding material, difficult.  According to MOS it is the editor's choice.
 * I actually find this way easier, but it is your choice, of course. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

would be nice:: It would be nice if there was some further detail on the battle, but I can understand if this cannot be done.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The is nothing on this except Young and Jourdan, that go into the specific details. Some other stuff is starting to appear, but since Napoleon wasn't involved, it's been neglected.
 * Fair enought. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

✅:: I would probably increase the size of the images, as they are a little small. Also, it would be best if alt text was added. will do
 * 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):
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Well, I am now satisfied that any and all of my comments have been addressed and this article now meets the Good article criteria, so I am passing it as such. Well done and congratulations! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)