Talk:Unification of Germany/GA1

Good Article review

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This is a nice article, but I don't want to review all of it: It's too long. This article is 86kb long, almost all of which is regular prose. WP:LENGTH recommends not to have more than 30-50kb of readable prose. When printed, this article is 17 pages long, excluding references. The article should probably be WP:SPLIT and incorporated into subarticles, with this main article using summary style. Otherwise, you may want to have more headers to break up long sections. Reywas92^Talk 18:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

okay, a previous reviewer told me that it needed FEWER headings.  ???? I asked about the length, and was told that it hung together well, so not to worry about the length. So...conflicting advice and direction. Solutions? --Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the headings really aren't too bad, and it doesn't have to be split, but I think that the length will deter some readers. I will be able to give a full review in the coming days. Reywas92^Talk 21:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Reywas92, since you forgot to indicate at GAN that you are the reviewer, I've added my name. Please feel free, of course, to add comments. Ricardiana (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Further reviews are welcome from any editor..."

Comments from Ricardiana:  Doing...

General

This is an impressive article overall, but I do have suggestions and questions, to which I'll be adding in the next few days.

1. Is there a specific reasons why the "Other references" section needs to be in this article? The article's 80k, or whatever it is, could be reduced easily without sacrifice of content by moving these citations to relevant articles or, if that can't be done right away, to a sandbox for storage.

merged into bibliography --Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that sources such as Bazillion, who don't seem to be cited in the article, could be left out entirely. But it's up to you. If you want to take the article to FAC, I think the size limit is 63 (? - don't quote me), and that would be an easy way to get the article's size down for FAC. Ricardiana (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 1 - well-written

Well-written overall. Some comments:

1. "from which all subsequent states bearing the name of Germany descend" - is this necessary, in this article? Since length is an issue that's been repeatedly raised, such details may not be necessary here.

was part of the original article. removed. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

1. "Debate among historians concentrates on whether or not" wordy. Could be "Historians debate ..."
2. While I find this subject interesting, I don't know much about it. I was a little confused by the transition from the first to the second para.s in the lead.

originally I had this as a "list" because each point was directly related to a subject heading in the article. Should I go back to this format? --Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I see. No, I don't recommend that (esp. if you want to take this to FA someday) - Can you add some transitions between list-points, to make the transitions read more smoothly? Ricardiana (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

okay, did some rearranging there, and added some text. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

1. "Although the development of the spheres of influence model " - wikilink "spheres of influence model"?

I added wikilink to that page, but it really doesn't deal with the Metternich settlement and the rise of German dualism. It has more to do with spheres of influence in Asia and Africa before WWI, and the spheres of influence after WWII. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

1. "Although the development of the spheres of influence model after the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 supposedly established Austrian dominance in Central Europe, Prussia's rising competence, embodied in the Realpolitik of "Iron Chancellor" Bismarck, challenged the Austrian authority for real leadership within the German states." - There's nothing really wrong with this sentence, but I think its multiple clauses will throw off readers unused to academic or high-level writing. Can you make this more friendly to the general reader?

will fix. :) --Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

...more to come. Ricardiana (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 2: Verifiable

Good here. Ricardiana (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 3: Broad

Heh. Yes. Ricardiana (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 4: Neutral

Yes. Ricardiana (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 5 - stable

Good here. Ricardiana (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 6 - images

All fine. If possible, it would be nice to have more images, to ... let's say ... capture the interest of those readers not overly interested in reading the whole article. Ricardiana (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do!  :) --Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

images added. More ? Or is this sufficient? --Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

They're good pictures, but I think that the Fair Use Rationale needs work on the second one; the first one, it looks to me, can't be used, because images (unless free) have to "enhance readers' understanding" of the topic. If you can write the FUR to indicate that it does this, then that pic will be fine. Ricardiana (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Verdict

I think that this well-researched and thorough article merits a GA. Nice job, Auntieruth55! Ricardiana (talk) 03:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)