Talk:Hans Joachim von Zieten/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 01:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Lead and infobox;
  • most particularly Hohenfriedberg and Torgau -> most particularly in the battles of Hohenfriedberg and Torgau
  • Mention about his family and death in the lead—fixed
  • In the "Allegiance" just Prussia is enough, remove the flag, per MOS:FLAGICON

• we usually put them in. I don't know why. It annoys me, but ....

• Section 1;
  • The years in which his father and mother were born are out of context, remove them. Also the year of their marriage—fixed
  • The date of birth of Zieten is not presented—fixed
• Section 2;
  • Link von Schwendy of Buskow, even if a red link—fixed
  • Link Neuruppin—fixed
  • later field marshal Kurt Christoph Graf von Schwerin; What was the then rank of Schwerin? It must General (later field marshal) Kurt Christoph Graf von Schwerin—fixed
  • But in the following year (1727) -> But in 1727—fixed
  • What is Rittmeister? Explain, also put on italics—fixed
  • On the 1 March 1731—fixed
  • Rittmeister; is it a rank? If so, what is the modern military equivalent, mention that in braces on the first mention

Rittmeister is captain of mounted troops. There is no modern equivalent.

• • soldier-king Zieten? What is this, I think king is William

Frederick William was called the soldier-king, I've cleared this up.

• • Lieutenant-Colonel; drop - and link the rank, also major, captain etc.—fixed
  • he dueled with his superintendent, Lieutenant-Colonel Alexander Ludwig von Wurmburg. Both were severely wounded; who won?

not mentioned. Who won. Presumably, since Zieten lived, he did. But that would be conjecture.

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Section 3;
  • was a major and squadron leader; both these ranks comprise from two different arms, major is used in the armies and the latter in the air forces. Please recheck

major and squadron leader can be simultaneous in the old mounted corps. Cavalry (Hussars, etc.) had squadrons.

• • to Lieutenant-Colonel; drop - and remove the initial caps—fixed
  • Pour le Mérite was over-linked—fixed
• Section 3.1;
  • Battle of Hennersdorf is over-linked—fixed
  • fourteen days later (4 June) -> 4 June—fixed
  • in November of the year -> in November—fixed
  • In March, 1756, -> In March 1756,
  • already-aging -> aging
  • began to be plagued by the gout; did he recover from the disease?

• one doesn't.

• Section 4;
  • Link lieutenant general—fixed
  • took part in the Battle of Reichenberg in 1757 and at the Battle of Prague -> took part in the battles of Reichenberg and Prague
  • Link Duke August Wilhelm
  • Be consistent while using the date format. Use "DD MM YYYY" or use "MM DD, YYYY". You have used both the formats in the article. Stick to one format and maintain the same throughout the article. —fixed
  • On 24 November, 1757 -> On 24 November, per MOS:DATEVAR
• Section 5;
  • Zieten entered retirement -> Zieten retired —fixed
  • was considered widely as a hero -> was widely considered as a hero —fixed
• Section 6;
  • Use space en dashes for date ranges —fixed
• Section 7;
  • Frederick William II is over-linked —fixed
• 0% confidence, violation unlikely

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks for going through this. I think I've got all your comments covered. auntieruth (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

---

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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)