Talk:Christmas truce/GA1

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

Reviewer:  Magic ♪piano 13:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * The reliability of www.historylearningsite.co.uk appears uncertain to me -- while it claims to be written by someone with history credentials, he does not provide sources for the Bertie Felstead story.  (Compare with www.greatwar.nl, which does list sources.)  All web links should be cited either using cite web, or otherwise include a publisher and access date; some do not.  If they refer to a major publication (e.g. The Guardian or The Scotsman), this should be more prominent in the reference (consider using cite news for these).  References to books published through the Gutenberg Project should be referenced as books (i.e. include original publication data).
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * I'd like to see more background on the military situation immediately prior to the truces; was the fighting severe? How severe?  Any major actions in the weeks before them?  Did the events only occur on the front near Ypres or were they more widely distributed?  (I am not well versed in WWI details.)   It's also not clear to me why, if whole books have been written on the truce (as evidenced by the Further reading list), none were consulted in citing this article.  This makes me wonder how much more information there is about these events.
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

I like the subject of this article. I think it is reasonably well-written, although there is probably room for improvement. I don't think this is a serious problem; I am more concerned about 3A. In addition to a need for more background, there is no evidence that book-length treatments of the subject have been consulted; I am consequently unable to assess whether the editors have adequately researched the breadth of the subject material. It is possible that these sources will address my other questions; using one or more such sources for citation will go some way to addressing my concern.

I will put the nomination on hold; if there is evidence of activity to address my concerns, it will remain that way, otherwise I will close it within 7-10 days.  Magic ♪piano 16:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for this review which is most helpful. I have rewritten the section 'French-German truce' to correct the grammatical problems - it would be helpful if you would check that you are now happy with it. I am unclear about the concern over the use of quote marks; perhaps you would give me an instance, for guidance, and I'll fix them? Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That section looks better now. I think that may have been the only place that had the other form of quote marks, so your rewrite took care of it.  Magic ♪piano 19:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now added a 'Background' section to set the Truce in context, as requested. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thanks. (Striking issues addressed so far.)  Magic ♪piano 21:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * B. "Citation of reliable sources where necessary:" I have replaced the source that was queried with The Economist and reworked the paragraph in line with that source. I have also improved the sourcing of the rest of that section. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good.  Magic ♪piano 00:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"It's also not clear to me why, if whole books have been written on the truce (as evidenced by the Further reading list), none were consulted in citing this article. This makes me wonder how much more information there is about these events." I have not used these books because I have no access to them. I am sure that there is more that can be said but that applies to any topic. However, in my search for sources it is clear that there is much overlap and the main events are now included. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I wanted to raise the issue because this could become an important point in other reviews. I think the coverage in the article is good enough as is for GA, but I would object in an A-class or FA review, since you literally do not know what those sources might add to the article, and the standards essentially require a survey of most of the relevant literature.


 * Article passes GA, congratulations!  Magic ♪piano 00:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)