Talk:Siege of Kehl (1796–1797)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs) 07:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I will have a go at this. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A first question, why do you have the disambiguation in the article name "Siege of Kehl (1796)", wouldn't "Siege of Kehl" work as well? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I answered this myself, I found

  • Battle of Kehl (1796)
  • Siege of Kehl (1733)
  • Siege of Kehl (1796)

I think it would be good practice to introduce {{Other uses}} pointing to the article Siege of Kehl to explain the need for disambiguation. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
  • Not sure if this comment belongs here, in the infobox it says that "Maximilian Anton Karl, Count Baillet de Latour" was the commander of the Austrian forces, in the lead it says that the forces were lead by Karl Aloys zu Fürstenberg.checkY
  • In the lead the forces came from the "Holy Roman Empire", the infobox states "Habsburg Monarchy". It would to put this in context.
    • hmmm,s ee if this clears it up. It was HRE contingents from Wuertt. and Habsburg regulars.
  • The infobox puts the French leadership under Louis Desaix while the lead states "French defenders under Louis Desaix and Jean Victor Marie Moreau"checkY


1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • "1796–1797", "1792–1798" see Wikipedia:DATERANGE
    • I don't understand this. The siege lasted over the beginning of the year.
      • Sorry for not being more clear, the date range should be "1796–97" and "1792–98"checkY
  • Check "Black Forest", it is over-linked in "Campaign in 1796"checkY
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
  • Moving forward I suggest to add ISBN numbers or OCLC numbers
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
  • the information on strength and casualties in the infobox does not appear in the body of the text. What is the source?checkY
  • reference #11 Ebert, "Fürstenberg.", I am not sure where this is pointing me toocheckY
  • Check spelling of reference "Philipart" or is it "Philippart"checkY
  • Check dashing on "pp.105, 108, 111-125" it should be "pp.105, 108, 111–125"checkY
  • Check dashing on "pp 118-121" it should be "pp 118–121"checkY
  • Regarding reference "(German) Helmut Volk. "Landschaftsgeschichte und Natürlichkeit der Baumarten in der Rheinaue." Waldschutzgebiete Baden-Württemberg, Band 10, S. 159–167." maybe better "(German) Helmut Volk. "Landschaftsgeschichte und Natürlichkeit der Baumarten in der Rheinaue." Waldschutzgebiete Baden-Württemberg, Band 10, pp. 159–167."checkY
  • Regarding "Carl von Rotteck, General History of the World C. F. Stollmeyer, 1842p. 210" better "Carl von Rotteck, General History of the World C. F. Stollmeyer, 1842, p. 210."checkY
  • Regarding reference #7 and #10, better to provide full reference on first occurrencecheckY
  • General comment: I have often been asked to provide a translations for non English reference. Maybe worth looking into
    • I don't think either of us should have to translate the title of a non-English reference.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  • the map in the infobox is lacking a captioncheckY
7. Overall assessment. Only 1b regarding date ranges remains unaddressed
    • I cannot find any additional date ranges without the dash. And now some additional junk is showing up in the lead that I cannot explain....something with the coords. auntieruth (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for points. I've also added some material. Have a look.  :) auntieruth (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siege_of_Kehl_(1796–1797)/GA1&oldid=1071266342"