Talk:Battle of Dürenstein/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Fix the edit link bunching, please.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   What is kind of unit is this? Meanwhile, Schmidt's column arrived, but was beaten back by the French 4ème Léger.

   I've marked a couple of infelicitous sentences that need fixing.FIXED And what was Karl Mack's rank? ADDED

   B. MoS compliance:

   combine your duplicate citations and correct the title capitalizations

   titles are corrected, everything properly capitalized. I don't do the name template.

   I wish you'd reconsider; it's really not a problem if you use very short names and I find it really distracting. But that's your call. Standardize the spelling of Doctorov between the text and the infobox.

   Doct. spelling standardized (I hope). I haven't got a clue how to do the name template anyway, and I'd not be willing to do it beyond a single paragraph anyway—multiple cites to the same 2 or 3 refs in a paragraph. I've condensed some of the cites so they don't repeat as much.

   Fix the capitalization in the Biographical Dictionary ref. FIXED

   Sorry, I meant in the footnotes as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Done.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   You might want to add an aftermath section as I'm not clear what happened to the rest of Mortier's corps on the north bank, especially those that weren't engaged. And what did the Russians do afterwards? Context is lacking on how this battle influenced later events, if at all.

   I added a preliminary and aftermath section.

   Indeed you did, but I was wondering more about how the battle affected the Austerlitz Campaign, not so much the whole war. More operational-level detail than grand strategic.

   expanded some of the aftermath.

   That's much better. My rule of thumb is battles have to be placed into the context of their campaign and campaigns in the context of their war, or, depending, which phase of their war. So the very general stuff about the Napoleonic Wars is superfluous, IMO, but I'm not going to worry about it for a GAR.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: