Talk:Battle of the Lippe/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 01:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

• Citations: The Citation Check tool revealed one minor issue with reference consolidation:
  • "Gallucci291" (Multiple references are using the same name)
    • Done, I think. It's a bit confusing.
      • Yes that's fixed, thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
• Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action req'd)
• Linkrot: no dead links [4] (no action req'd)
• Alt text: images lack alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (not a GA requirement, suggestion only).
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing (only a wiki mirror) [6] (no action req'd).
• Duplicate links: a few repeat links to be removed:
  • Carlo Maria Caracciolo
  • 's-Hertogenbosch
    • Done.

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • Wording here seems a little outdated: "...to attract Mondragón to a pitched battle...", perhaps consider rewording to something like: "...to entice Mondragón into a pitched battle..." (suggestion only)
    • I'm not an English native speaker, so I trust you. Done.
  • The language here is hard to penetrate and I am unclear of what is meant: "The Dutch intended to surprise a Spanish foraging convoy to deliver it into their camp, the Spanish army in persecution to the banks of the Lippe, where Maurice was awaiting with the Dutch States Army in order of battle." Could this be reworded?
    • How it looks now? "The Dutch intended to overtake a Spanish foraging convoy and deliver it into their camp in order to draw the Spanish army in persecution to the banks of the Lippe".
      • Yes that works for me. Anotherclown (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "However, Mondragón reinforced the escort of the convoy and hide in a wood nearby a large force of cavalry under his lieutenant Juan de Córdoba." Consider instead: "However, Mondragón reinforced the escort of the convoy and hid a large force of cavalry in a wood nearby under his lieutenant Juan de Córdoba."
    • Done
  • "The Catholic Netherlands were, consequently, caught between two fires..." I'm assuming "fires" is meant metaphorically? Perhaps reword to use more clear wording?
    • I've changed "fires" to "fronts" and also added a link to Front (military). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weymar Horren (talk • contribs) 12:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "As time passed, the Spanish foragers were forced to look for victuals two or three leagues...", perhaps wikilink leagues (to League (unit)) as it is no longer in standard usage.
    • Done
  • "...under the count of Kinsky...", should "count" be capitalized as a proper noun? (genuine question as I am unsure - happy to leave it up to you to decide).
    • Done
  • Is the terminology here correct: "...but after they had broken two or three Spanish squadrons..." specifically broken? Perhaps "defeated", "destroyed", "mauled", "forced to withdraw" etc might work better (I'm unsure of the exact meaning of "broken" here)?
    • I've changed "broke" for the more common expressions "put in disorder" and "routed", which mean the same.
  • "...The Spanish captives were freed, and the butiny recovered..." what does "butiny" mean?
    • I misspelled "booty". I've changed it for "the spoils of the convoy". I think it's easier to link with the development of the action.
  • "...blank range through the body with an harquebus...", perhaps wikilink harquebus.
    • Done
  • "John Lothrop Motley History of the United Netherlands: from the death of William the Silent to the twelve years' truce". The tilte of Motley's book should use title case.
  • "...Dutch force lost 3 flags..." should be "three" per WP:MOSNUM.
    • Done

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

  • Article is well referenced with all major points cited to WP:RS.
  • No issues with OR that I could see.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • Most major points seem to be covered without unnecessary detail.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

  • No issues I could see.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • No issues here.

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:

  • Images are free / PD and seem to have the req'd information / templates.
  • Captions look ok.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

This article is in quite good shape in my opinion, really only a few prose and minor MOS issues to deal with as above. Of course I'm happy to discuss any points you disagree with. Anotherclown (talk) 03:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Those changes look good to me, well done. Passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weymar Horren (talk • contribs) 06:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)