Talk:Razing of Friesoythe/GA1

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

Reviewer: Manelolo (talk · contribs) 18:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

An interesting little article. I'll do this one. Manelolo (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments
I did some copyediting along the way to this solid article. Spot checks done to verify statements from sources. Below my comments. Manelolo (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * "Interview with Dr. Bryce, May 11, 1998." From which source is this interview from?
 * Fixed. Embarrassing, I listed the source's source. No, not fixed. References are my weak spot. I shall have another try in the morning.
 * "The author, Colonel C.P. Stacey, references this to a personal visit to Friesoythe on 15 April." Would put this into a note, seems kinda redundant all there alone, no?
 * I would prefer this in the text unless it is a fail issue.
 * Nah, its ok!
 * "During the fighting around Friesoythe and in the immediate aftermath 20 civilians were killed – 10 from the town itself and another 10 from the surrounding villages." To stay courteous, I would list human casualties before material damage. Likewise, amend the subheading to 'Casualties and damage'?
 * Fixed and fixed.
 * "The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and the Lake Superior Regiment (Motor) were awarded the battle honour "Friesoythe"." This pops red on copyvio detector. Paraphrase to avoid copyvio.
 * Fixed.
 * Some odd duplication going on in the very last bibliography entry "War Diary, General Staff, 4th Canadian Armoured Division..."
 * I have just spent over an hour trying to fix this and simply made it worse! At least when I started it read smoothly for a reader. Did I mention my weak spot? Again I will have another go in the morning.
 * The last three sentences of the article, ending with "There was no investigation by Canadian authorities.", flow kinda badly and are separated. Consider somehow lumping them into one paragraph and making them flow together or smth similar?
 * Lumped. The result of no doubt well intentioned peer review comments. Thanks for the push to sort it.
 * "The 1907 Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV), Article 23, prohibits acts that "destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war."" This seems a bit WP:UNDUE to me. If no court or instance has ever found the unit guilty or hasn't even charged them, I don't think its Wikipedia's place to insinuate that they might have broken Hague Law? If there is a source pondering their actions in connection to Hague Law, then that would be ok (such as Stacey's opinion).
 * It is meant to explain Stacey's opinion. But you are right, it is clunky. I will attempt to reword. Or would you prefer it in a note? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A note after Stacey's opinion would seem best with 'For example' added in front of "The 1907 Convention Respecting..."! That way it doesn't insinuate and is connected to Stacey's assertion merely as an explanatory note. Manelolo (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed.

Right. That has given me a headache. I really need to learn how to do referencing. I have bodged something which I am hoping that you will accept.

The Bryce reference also fixed.

I think that is everything. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Looks very good! But ... unfortunately the Bryce note will have to be removed (or archived to the talk page) if there is no good, page-numbered reference to an RS. :-( It contains direct quotatation of Dr. Bryce and it challenges another page-numbered RS, so I cannot really pass the 2b criteria without a ref. Interesting info and all, but not verifiable. Otherwise looks ready to go! Manelolo (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * My error. I had inserted the reference as sfn, not harv, and so it didn't show. I really thought that I had checked that, but clearly I was concentrating on the War Diary reference. Apologies for wasting your time. Hopefully now all resolved. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Wunderbar! Manelolo (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: