Talk:Friedrich Joseph, Count of Nauendorf/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Magic♪piano 16:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
A few more things could be wikilinked, like "Swabia".

B. MoS compliance:
Footnotes are inconsistently formatted (especially those referring to the same source, like 8/9/12/13 and 11/14, which should be folded to a single named ref). "External links (sources)" should be folded into Bibliography.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Adequate use of English sources.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
A few words on his personal life would be nice, if any of the available biographies provide them.

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
There are no images. This source alleges a portrait to exist; failing locating a usable version of that (it is not shown in the Google preview for that source, and the book is not widely available), imagery related to his campaigns would suffice.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
A few modest problems to fix up.

I'll put the nomination on hold, and leave it open as long as I see progress being made. Magic♪piano 16:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Magic, thanks for reviewing. I can take care of a couple of things immediately.

Named Refs The named references issue is optional, as long as citing is consistent. I don't do the named references, because it leads to too many problems in expanding articles later, or problems with confusion of reading notes and footnotes. It is not actionable at GA, A class, or FA.
Images the portrait referred to in Hollins (I have the book) is not actually a portrait but a representation by the artist who illustrated the book. It was put in presumably to show the uniform, although I'm not exactly sure what the purpose was. I'll find some other images, possibly not one of him, but will find something from one of the battles, if I can.
External links is this a change in the MOS then? I thought external links had to be separate?
Personal life I found nothing on it. :( Unfortunately. I can speculate, but that would be speculation.

I'll take care of the wikilinks and other things like that pronto. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In re external links: I always include external links used as sources in with the rest of the sources (usually using {{cite web}} to format them), and reserve "External links" for things that are not used as references. (See also Wikipedia:LAYOUT#External_links.)

In re named refs: I'm ok with not collapsing to named refs, but the ones that are identical should look identical.

In re images: as I said, I'm ok with other thematically-relevant imagery (battle paintings, military maps of his campaigns, etc), but it's nice to know you've got the book :). Magic♪piano 21:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be ready for you now. I did this so long ago, I didn't have the tools I have now, so couldn't always see what cites looked like in edit mode (or at least not well). Added an image of the medal he received. Found some stuff on his family. expanded the lead. I'm not a fan of the cite web/cite books/cite journals, etc. templates, simply because they don't come out in the format that I "use" (AHA). I tried using them in a couple of articles (I think even in Cologne War--did you notice it reached FA a while back? Aren't you pleased?) and found that they did not add to the article at all, and made it more cumbersome to edit. So I went back to simply typing out my references. Now that I have the edit cites tool, it's easier for me that way. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that Cologne War FA'd -- congratulations! As for this one, it looks better to me now, so I'll pass it, but you really should get another image or two in there. Magic♪piano 00:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]