Talk:Marie Jeanne Baptiste of Savoy-Nemours/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found Jezhotwells (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Her regency ended in 1680 but she maintained power for some four years when her son banished her from further influence in the state. Unclear, surely "she maintained power for some four years until her son ..."
 * cadet branch needs explanation ❌
 * Poorly punctuated throughout. I have inserted a number of necessary commas and apostrophes, e.g. husbands" should be "husband's".  I shall leave the rest to you.❌
 * Officially engaged to Charles on 4 February 1662 the match was a popular one and had the backing of Queen Anne (mother of Louis XIV). Unclear, please rephrase for clarity.
 * Despite Charles Emmanuel II showing a clear liking fto Marie Jeanne, Christine Marie had been warned of by Cardinal Mazarin of her ambitious and volatile nature prior to arrival causing nothing to be discussed further. Again unclear, very poor grammar.
 * However, two days later the Treaty of Montmarte was signed, forcing Lorraine and Bar to go to Louis XIV. Surely Monmartre? Bar is this Bar-le-Duc? Rephrase for clarity - "forcing...to go", is very poor.
 * References should be after punctuation, not before, I have done the first two paragraphs, but leave the rest to you.❌
 * Not fully done.
 * The lead does not fully summarise the article. See WP:LEAD.❌
 * The more I look at this, the more I am convinced that the prose throughout needs a thorough copy-edit.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I have placed a number of citation needed tags.
 * Assume good faith for off-line sources.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 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):
 * Licensed and captioned
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * OK, sort out the missing citations, and the punctuation. On Hold for seven days.
 * Still needs more copy-editing, I have pointed out some more examples, but really it is all rather clunky and in parts not very clear at all. In addition several points remain un-addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well there have been a few more edits but the punctuation is still poor. Suggest that you enlist the help of WP:Guild of copyeditors, then get a peer review and renominate when the article is ready and meets all of the GA criteria. Fail GA nomination. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, sort out the missing citations, and the punctuation. On Hold for seven days.
 * Still needs more copy-editing, I have pointed out some more examples, but really it is all rather clunky and in parts not very clear at all. In addition several points remain un-addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well there have been a few more edits but the punctuation is still poor. Suggest that you enlist the help of WP:Guild of copyeditors, then get a peer review and renominate when the article is ready and meets all of the GA criteria. Fail GA nomination. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)