Talk:Friedrich Wilhelm, Fürst zu Hohenlohe-Kirchberg/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • In the Family section, perhaps say that there were four children (daughters?) born before Friedrich Wilhelm; at the moment, only eight siblings are mentioned, which then makes it a bit jarring when twelve are discussed in the sibling section.

   • The explanation was in the footnotes. I put it in the text. The four came with the next wife. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • I think that ref #3 (Kurdra and Smith) is redirecting to the website home page instead of to the article you wish to link. fixed

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • Is there no information on what happened during the first 20 years of his life? Nothing on schooling, training, initial assignments, etc? no. not unusual.
   • In the lead, it says "From 1780 until his death, he was the colonel and proprietor of the 17th Infantry Regiment.", but then nowhere in the body does it say anything about an appointment to this position in 1780, him being a colonel, or even the 17th Infantry Regiment at all. fixed.

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

A few comments, mostly about comprehensiveness. This article is quite close to GA status, but needs a few more tweaks before it is completely there. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Still a few comments before I promote:

• I added the sentence "The other five were:" to the Siblings section, which you changed to "The other six were:". Now, you say that seven of twelve died, which would leave five, and I only count five. Why six? Ummm....because I counted one of them twice?  :)
• Now ref #5 (Smith and Kudrna) is still redirecting - or at least I see nothing on the home page that verifies the information it's supposed to be sourcing. It should be okay now.
• Access dates are missing from some of the web references. They are included in the first instance, and not after, but they are listed in the bibliography.
• I know that you don't like to use named refs, but if you're going to repeat refs, could you please standardize them? For three refs that I think are to the same place, you have one as "Digby Smith "Hohenlohe-Kirchberg."", one as "Smith and Kudrna. "Hohenlohe-Kirchberg," Napoleon Series ; Ebert, Hohenlohe Kirchberg." and one as "Digby Smith and Leopold Kudrna. "Hohenlohe-Kirchberg."". I would prefer the final version to have the full names of the author, the title, the publisher and the access date, but please just make them all the same. okay, this should work now.

These should be the final comments, but I'll take another look once the above are resolved. Dana boomer (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Allright, everything looks good, so I am passing the article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time, Dana.  :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)