Talk:Battle of Elands River (1900)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 23:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have boldly copy edited. Flag up anything you aren't happy with.
Background. "In December 1899, the fighting in South Africa moved into a second stage." Er, you mention of the first stage, but could you tell the reader the name of the war and a little about how Australians and Canadians came to be involved in it? You seem to have "done a Gog" and got so close that you are assuming knowledge in the reader.

I did not expand this article, that was done by AustralianRupert many years ago. Rephrased completely since the Boers had begun to adopt guerrilla warfare by this point and AWM's division of the phases of the war is not exact – Elands River is in between the conventional and guerrilla phases. Not sure if the info about the early months of the war is relevant however.

Looks as if AR did then.

It's fine now.

"worth over 100,000 pounds". Optional: would you care to, or would you like me to, insert an inflation calculator giving this in today's money?

Are not such calculators inherently OR?

Possibly, but specifically allowed in last sentence of MOS:CURRENCY. It was just a thought. I habitually do it to give readers a grasp of what the value represents, but it certainly isn't required.

"a fjord"! Really?

Fixed obvious typo.

Thanks.

" a lack of digging equipment amongst the garrison" doesn't really work. Is there a better way of phrasing it?

Rephrased.

Thanks.

"Baden-Powell, despite having a superior force, delayed just 8 miles (13 km) from Rustenburg". Do you mean that he delayed, ie wasted time, or that he was delayed, ie by the Boers?

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fine piece of work. Definitely at the upper end of GAs. (I need to learn to write like that.) I hope that you are considering putting it up for ACR. Well done. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed