Talk:Johann von Klenau/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the good article criteria and I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Lead issues: Be absolutely clear who he is in the first sentence, so "Cajetan von Klenau und Janowitz (13 April 1758 – 6 October 1819) joined the Austrian army," becomes "Cajetan von Klenau und Janowitz (13 April 1758 – 6 October 1819) was a cavalry officer who joined the Austrian army,". I've also tided some other minor problems in the section. he wasn't a cavalry officer who joined, he joined and became a cavalry officer.
 * I see your point, but the first sentence of the lead needs to establish who he is not, not give a narrative history. so say "Cajetan von Klenau und Janowitz (13 April 1758 – 6 October 1819) was a cavalry officer in the Austrian army."
 * You are using the "Main articles" tags incorrectly - they are only required when the article in them is of direct contextual relation to this one. In this case, all of these links are better presented as simple blue links within the text. The main article links are superfluous and clutter the article.
 * The French Revolutionary War tag is unecessary, although the Aspern Essling one could perhaps stay. fixed
 * "For this brilliant exploit" - avoid terms like "brilliant", they give a value judgement on a man's actions. If you really need to say it then quote an eminent or contemporary historian.
 * "After the war (1815)," should be "After the end of the war in 1815"
 * "24 September 1795, the French and Austrian forces squared off in battle. After a lengthy cannonade, and what looked like the beginning of a long battle,[3] Klenau led a battle-winning charge." - repetition of battle, try to find another way to say this. fixed
 * "George Joseph Dufour (1758-1820)" - no need to give dates. done, but dates are needed at least in note, since Smith contradicts himself.
 * That note is a good addition that explains the need for dates more clearly than having it in the text, good choice.
 * Make sure that in this context "Imperial" always has a capital "I". it does (i used search feature to find all incidences of "imperial" and "Imperial", but then I decided to take out the translation.
 * I found one small "i" and changed it, so perhaps that was the only one (I just wanted to confirm that was the only example). If a quote uses a small "i", then always go with what is written in the quote.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The Smith/Kudra reference needs to be properly formatted like any other web reference and placed in the bibliography since it is not an internal link. I recognise this as a reliable source, but it is not obviously so, so be prepared that others may object to it without realising the expert nature of its contributors.
 * Try to ensure that references all come after punctuation. they do. If you find one that doesn't, show me (or fix it).


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * This is probably the article's biggest problem: it is very skimpy on detail other than his military activities (and even these are not extensive). For example "His distinguished action at Semlen earning his promotion to Major in 1788" - what ditinguished action is this referring to, and what was the battle? This has to be expanded.
 * Huge improvements here, well done. I have one question, relating to his family: were they significant nobility? don't know. Sources don't say.
 * Fair enough.
 * "He was captured at Offenbach," - by whom and was this a battle? - context needed here, what campaign was the army he was serving with fighting and what was his part in it? (you do this well in the following paragraph)
 * "At the beginning of the War of the Fifth Coalition" - give a date. you did that?
 * "Promotions" section is unhelpful where it is. It should either be incorporated as a footnote, or perhaps in a box as in the example below.
 * "Family" section should be incorporated into the appropriate place in the text (1800). '''done

'''
 * the '''Later career" is too short to be listed seperatly. Perhaps as a level three heading (with ===, oon either side) within the Napoleonic War section.
 * I really would like to see more information on his specific actions at various battles and on how he was considered by the military establishment. At the moment, this article is too lacking in detail on these issues.


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * It is stable.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * I have a high screen resolution, and those images are messing up the text badly. I strongly advise moving them both up one paragraph.
 * I have a high screen resolution, and those images are messing up the text badly. I strongly advise moving them both up one paragraph.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Good improvements, but still some work to do. Nice job so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent work, huge improvements since nominated making this a very fine article that I am happy to pass. Congratulations.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)