Talk:Louis Antoine de Saint-Just/GA1

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

Reviewer: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) 00:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Lead - check. Layout - check. Word choice - check.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I have Hampson and Rude both of whom are used in the article. I'm going through the stuff cited to Hampson, so far everything's looking good. Rude is used in one place and there source supports the text more or less, given the need to paraphrase. Maybe a bit of hyperbole but it's within reasonable limits.
 * Is the information on relationship with Thérèse Gellé from Vinot (which I don't have access to)? The inline citation is pretty far down the paragraph so it's not clear. If not, Hampson, pgs. 5-6 has the basic info.
 * ✅ I added two citations to that section. It can be sourced through Vinot too, but more citations never hurt, in my opinion. SteveStrummer (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks.


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * There is a very nice balance between detail and general info.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Good job on neutrality given the topic (personally I despise the guy)
 * 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):
 * File:Bataille de Fleurus 1794.JPG is lacking photographer/source/license information
 * I don't know what to do with this one. It's not really essential, and I don't like that it lacks key information (thank you for spotting that), so I'm considering just removing it entirely. What do you think?  SteveStrummer (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was going to remove it but it's actually not that hard to find the proper info so I'll just update it on commons. Volunteer Marek 13:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was going to remove it but it's actually not that hard to find the proper info so I'll just update it on commons. Volunteer Marek 13:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: