Talk:Siege of Badajoz (1658)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Siege of Badajoz (1658)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: One found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose is not good. It should never have been nominated in this poor state. Needs a thorough copy-edit by someone with a good command of plain English. You may be able to get help at the WP:Guild of copyeditors.  Done

   Examples:

   but not a strong a fortress as its fortifications were essentially medieval. "a strong a"

   Badajoz had been attacked by the Portuguese three other times during the war: in 1643, 1645 and in 1657, this last time to distract the Spanish forces besieging Olivenza "this last time"

   soon take cover behind the walls.

   The Portuguese forces launched a direct assault over the town, focusing in the capture of a key fort named San Cristóbal "focusing in the capture"

   to isolate the city from any attempt of relief. "attempt of relief"

   ''He was destituted and imprisoned for his failure. "destituted"

   Consistency: Use either Olivenza or Olivença; not both.

   In 1657 they laid siege to Olivença in command of 8,000 soldiers "in command of"

   I won't comment on the prose any more as it is so poor throughout.

   OK, please look at the comments left by the copy-editor, regarding changes they made.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   I assume good faith for the sources to which I have no access. Article is adequately referenced and sources appear reliable.

   I am not sure about the falg icons in the cited works section. There are differing opinions about their use in English Wikipedia. Not a GA criterion.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Thorough without unnecessary detail.

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   File:Duca di San Germano Francisco Tuttavilla.jpg does not appear to have the correct license. It should probably be {{PD-old-100}}. This will not impede the nomination, but it should probably be addressed.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   OK, I shall place this on hold for seven days for a thorough copy-edit to be performed. Also the incorrect licensing of the file needs to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

   Just waiting on a comment by the nominator regarding the accuracy of the copy-edit. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

   OK, I think the article now meets muster. I am happy to list it, congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyedited

I hope I have been able to help, and good luck with this article. I enjoyed reading it. I think it is important now that you go through it carefully to make sure that I haven't introduced any factual inaccuracies in the process of copy editing. Some passages required me to guess a little at what was meant, and I may have guessed wrongly. For example, in the section I have now called 'Attempted encirclement', there is a passage about an improvised star fortification, planned but not built, by the Italian general Ventura de Tarragona, and I wasn't quite sure which period this referred to. I also noticed just a moment ago, in the Introduction section, that the siege lasts until November in the opening sentence, but is relieved by Luis de Haro in October in the closing sentence. Check this and insert the correct date, so that the two are consistent.

I re-named the sub-section 'Circumvallation' because it is a technical word that many general readers will not have come across. I hope the phrase I have suggested fits properly. If it doesn't, change it.

The References section I altered a little because, given the abbreviated references in the Notes section, the full reference needs to be able to be quickly found, so the word used to identify that reference, e.g. Ericeira, should be the very first name in the full reference and easily spotted.

Richard asr (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Just playing about when I put the flag icons in, really – feel free to remove them! Richard asr (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much. The copy-edit is quite well and no inaccuracy has been introduced. The star fort was projected during the siege, so I think that the explanation it's clear. The withdrawal was completed during the last days of October. I've changed it. ElBufon (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Pleased to have been able to help. Congratulations all round, I think. If you ever have any more copy edit jobs, get in touch. Richard asr (talk) 09:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)