Talk:Battle of Auberoche/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 12:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More soon. Tim riley talk 12:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Review

This seems to me a fine article, and I think it meets all the GA criteria. There are a few minor drafting points, which don't affect the promotability of the article, but you may like to consider:

• Lead
  • "The Battle of Aberoche was a battle ... – well, yes. The sentence would work as well, and look less odd if you omitted "a battle".

Very tactful: "The battle... was a battle" Hmm! Done.

• • Lead image lacks alt text.

Done. (I had thought that that the existing caption obviated the need for an alt.)

• Prelude
  • "small scale" – I'd hyphenate this when used attributively, as here.

Done.

• • "maneuvered" – the article appears to be in BrE, and so this would be better as "manoeuvred" rather than the AmE form.

Done.

• Siege
  • "The chronicler Froissart tells an improbable tale, most likely apocryphal" – tautological, perhaps? If "improbable" no need for "apocryphal", and vice versa, it seems to me.

Good point. Done.

• Battle
  • "Reconnoitered" – another stray Americanism: "reconnoitred" would be right in BrE

Done. Thank you. (I read too much American fiction.)

• • "the last minute" – another attributive double-barrelled phrase I'd hyphenate.

Done.

• • "three pronged" – and another

Done.

• • "Contemporary chronicler Adam Murimuth" – as we're in in BrE it seems a pity to introduce a clunky false title. Such things are acceptable in AmE, I know, but happily remain a touch tabloidese in BrE.

Done. There's a lesson for me; I hadn't even realised that that was an Americanism.

• • "and they routed" – is there a "were" missing here?

No. (The verb acts on "the French", whose defence had just collapsed.)

Interesting. I didn't know the verb could be used intransitively. "Rare after 17th C" says the OED, but I suppose it's fine for 1345. You can be quite sure that someone will ask the same question at FAC, by the way. Tim riley talk 17:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Aftermath
  • "(£45,000,000 as of 2018[note 1])" – citation outside the bracket, please (MoS).

Not done. MOS:REFPUNCT, Exceptions:... Where a footnote applies only to material within parentheses, the ref tags belong just before the closing parenthesis.

Well, I've learned something more today. Thank you. Tim riley talk 17:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• • "Angouleme" – not mentioned before, so should be linked. Should also have its accent circonflex.

Done. Missing the link was me being sloppy. I had cut and pasted the name from its article title; startlingly, accents circonflex do not copy over from article titles.

• References
  • The formatting of the ISBNs is inconsistent. I don't propose to press the point at GA level, but if you go on to FAC (and I don't see why you shouldn't) you should tidy them up in conformity with Wikipedia:ISBN.

Will do. I certainly fancy a shot at an ACR, with a minor expansion and some additional sourcing.

• • ODNB: I don't think I've ever seen the editor credited in any of the hundreds of ODNB citations I've seen in Wikipedia over the years. It isn't done in any of the ODNB's own recommended citation formats, and in any case, Colin Matthew died five years before Ormrod's article was published: in 2004 the editor was first David Harrison, and then, when he retired during that year, Lawrence Goldman.

For an on line encyclopaedia or dictionary I use, and believe it is usual to do so, the current editor, so I have changed to Cannadine - I have no idea where my brain got Matthew from. I usually use the actual author of an entry where they are known, I have done this several times for EB1911. I will remove Ormrod's name if you prefer.

Quite the reverse: I would expect Ormrod, as author of the article, to have his name in the attribution. It was the mention of the editor that surprised me, but if you prefer to include that too, who could possibly object?

Nothing to frighten the horses there. These points are so minor that I shan't bother putting the review on formal hold, unless you wish it. Over to you. – Tim riley talk 13:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Thank you for the scholarly and educational assessment. I am hoping to push this further (once my existing late medieval ACRs get through) so feel free to flag up anything above and beyond GAN level. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

PS If you fancy having a look at the Battle of Bergerac, fought two months earlier in the campaign, it is also an unloved GAN.

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm very pleased to add this enjoyable article to the list of GAs, and will look in at the Battle of Bergerac as you suggest, though I don't promise to review it. Meanwhile, if you take this article to FAC, please ping me when you get there. Tim riley talk 17:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)