Talk:Principality of Erfurt/GA1

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

Reviewer: 10W40 (talk · contribs) 13:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


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

I will start work now and finish the review in stages. I complement the author on a well-written article. I take it this article is based on the German Wiki articles "Fürstentum Erfurt" (on the principality) and "Belagerung von Erfurt (1813)" (on the battle). That would explain the military orientation as well the overuse of German. A principality article should answer questions like, What was the population? Who was head of state? Who was governor? What was the law? Did they use the Napoleonic Code? Was the official language French or German? Add I thought another question along these lines: What did they use for money? It's certainly not necessary to have answers to all of these questions.
 * Not just those 2 articles, but a bunch of other sources too. I'll take a look at what I can find to expand on the specific areas you mention here; you're right that some of these are conspicuous by their absence. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Having been mainly Prussian territory before the Napoleonic Wars, it was mainly restored to Prussia by the Congress of Vienna.
 * There should be a way to avoid using "mainly" twice in the same sentence. The lead section should be more than one paragraph and it should summarize all sections of the article. The last sentence of the lead is a stress point, so you may want to consider putting a major theme at that point.
 * I've reworded this for now, but I'll expand the lead properly to incorporate your other feedback when I have a little more time. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * to commemorate the birth of the Prince Imperial,
 * Use his name: Napoleon II.
 * Calling him Napoleon II would be anachronistic (as he didn't gain the regnal number until his father's abdication), so I've reworded it to to commemorate the birth of the Prince Imperial (later Napoleon II). — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Similarly the Cyriaksburg Citadel (Zitadelle Cyriaksburg) was damaged by the French with the city-side; the direction of the senate-president (Kammer-Präsident); French administration (the Domänenkammer); "imperial state domain" (French: domaine réservé à l'empereur), and using a large pond (lavoratorium)
 * Use English, i.e. "Cyriaksburg Citadel," "senate-president," "French administration," and "imperial state domain." Translating a common word like "pond" is rarely appropriate.
 * The Citadel's German name I deliberately included as a link to the article on dewiki (because it's redlinked here). The last one is not really a pond (it looks like I worded it badly when I wrote that part last year); I completely take your point about the Latin word, so I've reworded that. I agree too about the other terms you highlight, so I've removed those altogether. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Generalfeldmarschall Möllendorf
 * This is another one that needs translating. Field Marshal Richard Möllendorf?
 * Generalfeldmarschall is a specific title that doesn't quite equate to a "field marshal–general" — it's a wikilinked article, providing more detail about the extra privileges that rank came with. I'm not sure it makes sense to replace the title with its English translation. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * previously the seat of city's governor under the Electorate.
 * "under the archbishop" would be clearer. Was the city ruled by the archbishop of Mainz until 1802? That should be clarified.
 * You're right; I'll improve that — here, in the lead and in the background section. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right; I'll improve that — here, in the lead and in the background section. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): }
 * I put the article through Earwig. Nothing is copied from anywhere.
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

The reviewer completely disappeared so I'm putting this back in the queue. Wizardman 15:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've decided to pass this. It's a well written article despite the flaws mentioned. 10W40 (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)