Wikipedia:Peer review/Le Paradis massacre/archive1
Le Paradis massacre is my first article, and I got it to GA. I'm a new editor so all help is appreciated. I took it here for help with the prose, issues have been raised with sections on the background, the regiments and the battle of La Paradis. Problems with redundant phrases, grammar, fluency, and "sketchy details" have also been raised.
Regards,
Mattyness (talk) 23:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Come on! You peer-reviewed other articles! Give the new guy a break....please? Mattyness (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Comments by BuddingJournalist
- Great work so far! Have you thought about possibly trying to make this a featured article in the future? Some specific comments:
- "It should be noted that in total sixteen-thousand prisoners..." "It should be noted that" is one of those throw-away phrases that usually adds nothing to a sentence (and in my opinion, actually weakens it).
Done - "In total, only one hundred were taken in the area..." This was confusing. I thought 16,000 prisoners had been taken? Done
- "The men of Totenkopf fought recklessly throughout the campaign, suffering comparatively higher death rates that other German forces." This sentence would probably be best appearing in the paragraph before the discussion of the prisoners. Done
- The Manual of Style recommends that numbers higher than ten be given in numerical form (16,000 prisoners, 200 French-Moroccan troops). This should be done for the whole article. Done
- "By this time, the first German units had..." What time? Done
- "attack on the May 24." Missing a word (night, day?) or just a typo perhaps? Done
- "to preserve tanks for the upcoming campaign" Which campaign? Done
- "had been ordered to hold out for as long as possible against the Germans to give as much time as possible " repetition. Done
- Linking specific places would be helpful ("Riez du Vinage", "Le Cornet Malo", "Bois de Paqueaut", etc.)
Not done None have articles. - "because the boundary between the two British regiments was the road dividing the position, Ryder's men surrendered to Knöchlein, who had been fighting the Royal Scots." Unclear and confusing. Done
- "The British prisoners were marched to the barn, lined up alongside it and
were thenfired upon..." parallelism/redundancy Done - "forced French civilians" Awkward. Recast sentence ("...and the Germans forced French civilians to bury the bodies...") Done
- "who were later captured by the Wehrmacht's 251st Infantry Division" When exactly? Not done I can't find anything in the sources.
- "His lawyer, Dr. Uhde" First name? Not done Again, in every sources it is just "Dr, Uhde".BuddingJournalist 20:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- "It should be noted that in total sixteen-thousand prisoners..." "It should be noted that" is one of those throw-away phrases that usually adds nothing to a sentence (and in my opinion, actually weakens it).
Yay! A response! I will get working on all those points right now. Anymore comments would be welcomed so much it's not even true. Mattyness (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- I run the peer review script on over one hundred articles a month - sorry I missed your comment until now. I read the article and made a few minor copyedits just now. Seems well written and decently illustrated. Also well referenced. If you could get a map of the area that would make things clearer - some of the battle descriptions / movements of troops are hard to follow without a map. I was also wondering about the 200 French Morroccans executed by the same unit - any more on their story? Other than that, seems pretty far along the road to FA. Nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)