Talk:Brabant Revolution/GA1

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

Reviewer: 3family6 (talk · contribs) 03:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fantastic ! Many thanks for taking on the review! I look forward to your comments. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * Copyvio check found no violations, but did find a Wikipedia mirror.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 20:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Prose is excellent, and even ready for featured status. However, in the final, historical analysis section, there are a few problematic sentences. "Pirenne, a liberal himself, could only explain the defeat of the Vonckists by playing up the economic and social backwardness of the Austrian Netherlands.[47] Made big use of the disgust seen in "enlightened" German traveler's tails to prove this.[48]" - the first sentence has "a liberal himself," which is too repetitive considering "a nationalist himself" is given a few sentences up. The second sentence is incomplete, and poor prose considering the quality of the rest of it. Perhaps reword as "Pirenne, as a liberal, could only explain the defeat of the Vonckists by playing up the economic and social backwardness of the Austrian Netherlands.[47] He supported this viewpoint by referencing the disgust seen in "enlightened" German traveler's tails."-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 20:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. One of my notes which sneaked into the final version I'm afraid. I've dealt with it now.—Brigade Piron (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * Follows MOS very well. This article is almost ready for FA status.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 20:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * The reference sections are very nicely designed, and consistent in format.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 20:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:
 * Well-cited and referenced. However, there's one sentence in the "Austrian rule" section that I think needs a citation, especially since the entire paragraph has no citations: "Within the states themselves, the "traditional" independence was considered extremely important and figures such as Jan-Baptist Verlooy had even begun to claim the linguistic unity of Flemish dialects and a badge of a national identity in Flanders."-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 20:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Should be sorted.—Brigade Piron (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * C. No original research:
 * All content is referenced and verifiable.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 20:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * All major aspects of the Revolution are covered.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 20:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * B. Focused:
 * Article is focused very nicely on the subject.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 20:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Very fair discussion, covers all major perspectives.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 20:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * No history of edit warring, or other disputes of any kind.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 20:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * No copyvios. There were several images that needed a parameter specifying their public domain status in the US, so I went ahead and fixed it.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 20:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that!—Brigade Piron (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Captions are relevant and useful.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 20:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall: Just a few issues with a few sentences, which I've noted above.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 20:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Apart from a few, minor issues, I think this article is ready to be a featured article, not just a good one.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 20:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fantastic! That's very kind of you. I hope I've dealt with the points highlighted. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good now. Passed!-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 04:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks indeed! A real pleasure to work with you! —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)