Talk:Battle of Leuthen/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 14:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll start this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• No DABs, external links OK
• Images appropriately licensed.
• Clarify that the Sudetes is a mountain range

• fixed

• It was Frederick greatest victory so far fix this

• fixed

• Triops typo

• fixed*

this provided to tactically important charges word left out?

• fixed

• The horse artillery not only maintained its fire, but it kept pace with the army and deployed and redeployed its guns. awkward
• Put all English-language titles in title case in your footnotes and refs. Even for journal articles and websites.

• done, I hope

• Standardize on citation format. You're using a mixture of short footnotes and full cites in your footnotes, pick one, preferably short footnotes.

• I tweaked a couple, but the short form is used after the long form if the page numbers changed.

• Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, I hope these changes are sufficient. auntieruth (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Almost.

• It seems kinda redundant to use full titles in the notes and then have full cites in the References. But I guess that's more a style thing.

• just my foibles. Sometimes people just want the bibliography

• Move books not cited in the notes to a further reading section. (Duffy, Citino) Y
• What makes Kronoskaf.com reliable? It appears to be a wiki.
  • Kronoskaf is reliable. Matches up well will what major sources say--They focus only on 7 Years War, and the people who do it are obsessive with the details. I can probably replicate those cites from Duffy.
    • Do that, as wikis are rarely ever provably RS.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
• Be careful mixing cite book templates and manual formatting in the refs. The template italicizes titles, while all the manually cited books have quotations marks, which makes me think that they're articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• I detest those templates. I'm not finding one in there....I usually italicize titles of books or articles, and underline journals. I think that's what I've done here. auntieruth (talk) 13:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm actually fine with them because everything is consistent, which is a huge deal at ACR and FAC, and thus saves me from worrying about a misplaced comma or colon. Like take a look at the differences between Asprey between the Notes and the Refs; the title is capitalized in one and is enclosed in quotation marks in the other. Or the same thing in the further refs where Citino is italicized and Duffy isn't.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Hmm I never noticed it. The further reading was left over from the origina article, and I didn't pay much attention. I don't like the way the templates treat urls. On the other hand, it took me 3 years to use the shortened form (a,b,c) of the footnotes either.  :) It should be okay now. auntieruth (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• That looks good enough, but don't forget about replacing Kronoskaf.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC) Y auntieruth (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)