Talk:Battle of Fontenoy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Robinvp11 (talk · contribs) 18:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

General Comments

Its too long; writing encyclopedia entries requires leaving out detail interesting to the author but not of value to the average user. I know that myself :); a lot of work's gone into this but it doesn't matter if its not used.

Over-written; one reason its too long are sentences like this; '...for a brief time an irrepressible optimism pervaded the allied councils of war. The youthful Cumberland had designs on a campaign that would culminate in Paris, but the more experienced Ligonier – Cumberland's mentor and commander of the British infantry – warned that France's numerical advantage meant the allies must "by their situation, be masters of besieging wherever they please".

I've read this several times and I'm still unclear what it means (I'm sure the author does but I don't) and it could be one short sentence.

This is one of the earliest articles, so perhaps it needs updating. I've done several of the other battles so I'd like to have a go at editing this and then let someone else review it - because its not ready.

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Robinvp11: As the nominator has not taken action on this I suggest failing it so that you can improve it yourself and resubmit it when you feel it is ready. Kges1901 (talk) 10:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Kges1901: Will do Robinvp11 (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Kges1901: Now done Robinvp11 (talk) 11:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• For housekeeping, could you implement the instructions at Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Failing, removing the template that Gem fr pasted into the talk page? Kges1901 (talk) 11:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite now completed; I am confident it now meets the GA criteria.

Well written: I hope :) Verifiable with no original research now includes current Sources, updated and checked Broad in its coverage: expanded to cover the background to the war and the strategic issues leading to the battle, while removing unnecessary detail/using Summary style; Neutral: removed a number of non-neutral wording or POV; Stable: no edit wars (at present); Illustrated added maps, confirmed Fair Use

Robinvp11 (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

There are some issues with the article, so firstly 'while a brigade under Richard Ingoldsby captured the Redoubt de Chambonas,' links to a Richard Ingoldsby who was an officer the 1640s. Unless he was campaigning well into his 100's - this seems unlikely. Secondly, there is a reference to the (British) 42nd Regiment (Black Watch), but at the time, pre 1748, the Black Watch was the 43rd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.152.68 (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)