Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Bovey Heath/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: CPA-5 (talk · contribs) 13:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Claim my seat here. CPA-5 (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh I see didn't know it was allowed to use southwest. I always thought it was an americanised English word.
  • It's not really required and as far as I know MOS doesn't mention this. However most history books or encyclopaedias I saw use this kind way. Why? I have no idea. What I can tell it it looks better to re-order them. But I do not think it is that important in a GA, I believe it really important to add it in the FAC. FAs are the closes thing what we can make a perfect article so it should be mentioned in it to make it part of our FAs. This is just a sugestion and this is just my opnion and I am not the only who think about that.
  • So if I'm not wrong you can use both "cavalry" and "cavalries" as plurals right?
  • Sort of. I can't think of many occasions on which I would use "cavalries"; probably only something like "both sides had strong cavalries". Another common time this causes confusion is in sports articles. AmEng would say "Manchester United is a soccer team", while BrEng say "Manchester United are a football team". Harrias talk 07:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Harrias: I see, that make sense words like "crew" and "Crown" have a plural form too. I don't know or you British or not but to me as a non-English speaker it sometimes does sound better and sometimes it doesn't. Britons love to play hard in their language. But organisations shouldn't be a treated as a plural right? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe so. Incidentally, I think I confused myself with the football team example, as that is a case when there is ambiguity about referring to the team or the organisation, so I have cut it. Harrias talk 09:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No edit war.

Infobox

  • Can we not remove the File:Devon UK location map.svg image to above the date part?
  • "Casualties and losses: Around 150 men captured" The number isn't mentioned in the body?

Sources

  • When is this rule a requirement then?
        • It is never specifically set out. The GA criteria states: "Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source." You could make an argument that the A-class criteria requires it: "..consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style.." though it is unclear whether that would really require consistent ISBNs. To be honest, this is a nonsense requirement at any level, just introduced because having them all the same looks better. The point of the ISBN is to be able to easily search for the book. Either ISBN10 or ISBN13 provide this. Most MILHIST topics use older books which have OCLC numbers, so it doesn't all look the same anyway. Harrias talk 07:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Twenty two turbulent years 1639–1661" book needs a Google Books URL.
  • The rest looks good to me.

Images

  • Images looks good to me.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review; I've addressed each point, let me know any further feedback. Harrias talk 21:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]