Talk:Johann Jakob von Wunsch/GA1

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

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

The article has been significantly improved, and I feel it now meets the criteria for GA. Nice work, Ruth. Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * The first sentence in the lead needs a verb, and the second sentence has two semi-colons (I generally prefer to keep it to one per sentence).
 * The first sentence in the Early service section reads a bit odd, specifically the "he", then "it." I know what you mean, but it sounds odd when the subject of the pronoun changed in the sentence. Maybe instead of "it", substitute "the unit" or something like that.
 * The line he realized he was a junior lieutenant out prospects - should that be "without prospects" ?
 * In that same section, you've got ...was advanced to Rittmeister - that reads a little odd as well. I know you don't want to use "promoted" every time, but maybe "advanced in grade/rank" or something like that, just so we're clear what's going on.
 * In the second paragraph of the 7 Years War section, can you clarify what the "light troops" were? You mention above he was given command of a battalion; was it a full brigade?
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * You've got some mixed tenses that need to be cleaned up (for example, ...surprised von Daun at Hoyerswerda, punching a hole in the Austrian defensive line.)
 * Should the quote of the monument inscription be in quotation marks?
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * Do you know what his son's name was?
 * Not all that necessary. Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead could be fleshed out a bit with some of the personal information. Remember the lead is supposed to function like an abstract.
 * 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:
 * 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:


 * My two cents
 * This article needs a thorough copy edit, as there are missing wording and needlessly repetitive wording. (And that is just reading the first few sentences of the lead.) Regards, Xtzou ( Talk ) 22:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)