Talk:Trenck's Pandurs/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 06:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read through and begin the review proper shortly. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put the review on hold; some minor copyediting points, and two content based questions below. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has noted here that he won't be editing this article further; I'm therefore failing for now. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

"raised by Baron Franz von der Trenck pursuant to a charter issued by Maria Theresa of Austria in 1741" - "pursuant" is slightly archaic; I'd recommend "under a charter" or "following a charter".
"was named after guardsmen otherwise employed to maintain public order." - you later say "security guards", which is probably a better term ("guardsmen" having a particular meaning in English)
"a musical ensemble " - would "a military band" be a better translation?
" the group was named Turkish band " - "a Turkish band", "the Turkish band"? It seems odd without an article.
"The oriental appearance " - "Their oriental appearance"?
"During the Battle of Soor, the unit plundered a Prussian war chest and the belongings of Frederick the Great." - would "looted" be better than "plundered"? Or "plundered the contents of a Prussian war chest"?
"known to loot and pillage" - "known for looting and pillaging"?
"music ensemble" is linked twice in the lead
"though the nasal in place of the "u" suggests a borrowing before Croatian innovated its own reflex for Proto-Slavic /ɔ̃/." - this sentence needs a little work - it isn't terribly easy to read if you don't know a little bit about linguistics to start with, and most won't.
"Pudar" is applied to security guards protecting crops in vineyards and fields... - "is applied", or "was applied"?
"it was coined from the verb puditi, pudati " - I'm not a linguist, but why the repetition of two different forms here?
"medieval Latin" - you could wikilink this if you wished
"included county pandurs or hussars patrolling roads and pursuing criminals" - "hussars who patrolled roads and pursued criminals"?
"The role of the pandurs extended to Dalmatia" - "was extended"?
"raised by Baron Franz von der Trenck pursuant to a charter" - as per above
"Pandurs arrived in Vienna..." - are you happy that the instances of "Pandurs" as opposed to "The Pandurs" in the article are right? An equivalent English unit is the Guards; you can talk about "Guards arriving..." (some of the Guards unit) or "The Guards arriving..." - the whole unit. When I'm reading "Pandus..." I'm assuming you mean that some Pandurs arrived, rather than the Pandurs unit itself. Applies throughout really.
"five scribes" - would "clerk" be a better military term than scribe?
"Pandurs did not have specific uniforms nor did they dress uniformly" - I wasn't sure what the "specific uniforms" meant - it felt duplicative with the "did not dress uniformly" bit
"The oriental appearance..." - as per above
"capturing Zobten am Berge and Strehlen..." did they do this on their own (which is how it reads). Same applies to the rest of the paragraph
"augmented by" - not sure that "augmented" is the best word here
"Trenck was relieved of command in 1746 and tried for acts of violence." - why is acts of violence in italics?
" lending their leader's name to the village of Trenkovo" - perhaps "giving" rather than "lending"? (unless it was changed back)
"also lend their names to a modern armed force unit " - ditto.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

Apologies in advance if I misunderstand the Croatian, but, Fn 2, "Nives Opačić" - this seems to be a newspaper. Is it a reliable source for 18th century history?

That is a scientific journal published by Matica hrvatska - one of the foremost institution in Croatia in terms of research and publication of Croatian language dictionaries, grammar books and similar, and the journal in question primarily deals with Croatian language as well as Culture in general, so I'm quite confident it is a reliable source in this respect (etymology).--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No prob's - my translation skills aren't great! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

(c) it contains no original research.

Fn 8, "Croatian and Serbian cops rascals (translation)" - the text associated with the citation looks a little like O/R based on the article's use of the term, but I'm happy to be corrected if I've misunderstood it.

The source is used to support a claim that the term "pandur" is still used in Croatian slang for police (a news headline in this case), exacly like "cop" in English. There is absolutely no other relation claimed between the article topic and the source.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's sort of the Original Research point I'm concerned about - the article isn't saying that the term is used, its an interpretation we're giving to the article. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

A big one - what happened to the Pandurs regiment in the 19th century? You mention a Pandur militia in 1821 in See Also, but the rest of the century seems a little sparse.
Could you take a look at this for me? (NB: I can only see pages 5-7) I don't know how good a source David Hollins is, but he seems to use the term "the Pandurs" fairly widely to refer to a broader body of irregular forces. Be interested in your thoughts. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

Appears neutral at this stage. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

File:File:Panduren 1742.jpg lists the author as "R. Knötel +1914", and claims "life of the author plus 70 years." We'd really need the date of death for the author given it is relatively recent.

Richard Knötel died on 26 April 1914.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the original file. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Franz von der Trenck 1711 1749 Oberst.jpg has a "life of the author plus 70 years" tag but no author detail given. Is there any chance of determining the author?

Right now, I honestly cannot say. I can tell from this source that the painting hangs in the Bavarian Military museum in Ingolstadt. I'll look it up though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This archived source indicates that the painting (item #824) is from 1742.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the original file. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Yes. "Trenck's Pandurs" has an apostrophe in the original image file, but lacks in the caption however. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the apostrophe issue.

Thank you for your effort and time taken to review the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]