Talk:Christoph II von Dohna/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 23:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I'll have a look at this one. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Prose.
"Christoph II descended from an old Prussian family, Stanislaus von Dohna (1433–1504);" This seems ungrammatical. Do you mean: 'Christoph II descended from an old Prussian family, the von Dohna's;'? Or 'Christoph II descended from an old Prussian family, the von Dohna's, founded by Stanislaus von Dohna (1433–1504);'?"Dohna's military career modeled that of other Junker sons." I am not sure that "modeled" works here; 'copied', 'emulated'?
Done- I have never seen a definite article consistently placed in front of the names of military units, eg "the Infantry Regiment No. 23". Unless there is some rule about naming Prussian regiments can I suggest that the article would read better without them? Done
- @Auntieruth55: You have ticked this as done, but still have "the" in front of every mention of "Infantry Regiment".
- Oh, I thought I was to make the No, Nr consistent (which I did.
You are inconsistent in naming the regiments. Eg: no. and nr.; sometimes a comma after Regiment, sometimes not. Done"where he received his own company". Would it be more accurate to say 'where he was given command of a company'? (Given the use of "proprietor" in the military sense elsewhere.)"In 1727, he was the youngest captain promoted to Lieutenant-Colonel." I think that this needs qualifying. Do you mean that he was the youngest in 1727; or ever for the Prussian army; or to that date for the Prussian army; or for any army ever?"On 20 June 1745, Dohna was appointed major general by patent of 15 May 1743" is, I think, a little confusing for a lay reader, as it seems to give two different dates for his promotion. If you want to leave "by patent" in then I think that it needs explaining.- "and chief of the Infantry Regiment Nr. 4 in 1745. He soon became the proprietor of Infantry Regiment Nr. 23. On July 14, 1748, he became Proprietor of Infantry Regiment No. 16, and on 25 January 1751, he became a lieutenant general.[4] He remained proprietor of the regiment until his death in 1762." Is this meant to mean that he was only proprietor of one regiment at any one time, or that he accumulated the proprietorship of all three? Is "chief of" synonymous with 'proprietor of'? Done German word for boss is chef or chief. Only one at a time, as the chart makes clear (I think).
- @Auntieruth55: It does, but it is at the end. It is not clear eg in the lead. I had to think about it as the Prussian system is different from the similar Austrian one. I strongly suspect that a casual reader would be misled. I have made a minimum tweak, are you happy with it? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
"and on 25 January 1751, he became a lieutenant general"; "in 1753 and also promoted to lieutenant general in January of that year." [?]"... against the Swedes at Stralsund. He held the Russians at bay..." If he was appointed against the Swedes, how come he was holding off Russians?- I have copy edited, please check. Done
Lead.
The lead seems brief to me. Possibly a second paragraph on his military experience?
Images.
- His house seems barely relevant to his notability, or the text. Is there not some generic image which it could be replaced with?
@Gog the Mild: Couldn't find an image of him.
- @Auntieruth55: A nice little article. He seems to have been a busy chappie. Some thoughts above on a first skim through. I thought that I would give you a chance to respond before addressing broadness and the prose in more detail. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Very busy chappie. I think I've clarified regiments, etc. auntieruth (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Auntieruth55: A nice little article. He seems to have been a busy chappie. Some thoughts above on a first skim through. I thought that I would give you a chance to respond before addressing broadness and the prose in more detail. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Auntieruth55: FYI I think that this is a little thin on "broad", eg compare with Frederick William von Kleist, but it is enough for GA.
- A solid little article, well researched and explained. And interesting to read too. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
