Wikipedia:Peer review/Carl Gustav Rehnskiöld/archive1

Carl Gustav Rehnskiöld edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently translated it from the corresponding article on Swedish Wikipedia, which I am the main writer of. I want to get this article up to FA status, but I first want to see if this article need further improvements/changes.

Thanks, Alexander Alejandro (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexander Alejandro: Thanks for your work on this article. Might I suggest that you withdraw this PR and nominate at WP:Good article nominations instead? The article meets most of the Good Article criteria, except for some issues with image placement. GAN is a better attended review process, and the reviewer will likely have suggestions for further improvement. Alternatively (or after the GAN), you could try A-class review with the military history wikiproject. That process is designed to get articles ready for FAC. b uidhe 08:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

This is in impressive shape. FA seems an entirely reasonable aspiration.
I very much agree with Buidhe's comments above.
The article is too long. It needs a serious edit to lose trivia and to be written in a more summary style. Note that WP:TOOBIG suggests that articles over 50kB "may need to be divided", articles over 60kB "should be divided". I make this almost exactly 60kB RPS. In my view, too big for a straight forward biography.
There are the normal bits and pieces. Eg Bain, ISBNs didn't exist in 1895; image sandwiching; article titles starting with a definite article; some ambiguous phraseology. The sort of thing which would be picked up if you followed Buidhe's proposed course of action.

I hope that this helps. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An afterthought. I have a copy of Bain. I thought that it rang a bell. I would not consider him a RS. You only use him for one, inconsequential cite, so I would lose him. He makes me suspicious of the reliability of the rest of your sources. Similarly, while I know nothing about Kuylenstierna, do you really need to really on a source from 120 years ago? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Buidhe and Gog the Mild for your suggestions. I'll nominate the article at GAN. Alexander Alejandro (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]