Jump to content

Talk:Italian campaign of 1796–1797/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. simongraham (talk) 06:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: Sir MemeGod (talk · contribs) 16:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 17:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like it is an interesting article, and on a cursory glance seems very close to being a Good Article. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Overall, the standard of the article is high.
  • It is of substantial length, with 8,481 words of readable prose.
  • The lead is significant with a length of 541 words.
  • Authorship is 79.3% from the nominator with contributions from 23 other editors. The most significant otherwise is Lilyyuuta, who has contributed 17.6%.
  • It is currently assessed as a B class article and was a DYK on 4 October 2024.

Criteria

[edit]

The six good article criteria:

  1. It is reasonable well written.
    the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
    • Suggest splitting up "The first French generals to move, crossing the Brenta, were Masséna, Guieu (who succeeded the ill Augereau), Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte (new arrival from Germany together with general Antoine Delmas with an important reinforcement of troops) and Sérurier, who advanced without difficulties occupying Primolano on 1 March." to simplify it.
    • The writing is otherwise clear and appropriate.
    • There are three instances of "the the", one of "marked marked", one of "with the with the". Please remove these and check if there are any other instances of repeated words.
    • Suggest adding a comma after "Five days later", "On 28 April 1796" and "Without a moment's respite".
    • Please review "the Austrians would always been able to launch".
    • "The victory that Bonaparte achieved in Lodi could not be considered total, in fact Beaulieu managed to retreat with most of his troops." Is a run on sentence. Replace the comma with either a semicolon or add a conjunction.
    • I can see no more obvious spelling or grammar errors.
    it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
    • It seems to comply with the Manuals of Style.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    all inline citations are from reliable sources;
    • BATTLE REPORT # 12 -NAPOLEON'S ITALIAN CAMPAIGN 1796 (RE-POST) is a blog.
    • What is the reliability of Houghton's page A Peoples' History 1793 – 1844 from the newspapers, Rikard's Napoleon's Campaign in Italy, 1796-97 and the other web-based articles?
    it contains no original research;
    • All relevant statements have inline citations.
    it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;
    • Earwig gives a 21.3% chance of copyright violation, which is reported as "violation unlikely". The highest correlation is with the page entitled Napoleon's Italian Campaign on the World History Encyclopedia. The shared text is restricted to titles like "the Treaty of Campo Formio" and "Siege of Toulon".
  3. It is broad in its coverage
    it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
    • The article does a good job of covering the subject's life and work.
    • Suggest it may be worth exploring the legacy (if any) of the conflict, especially in light of the wider Napoleonic reforms in Italy.
    • One book that may be worth looking at is Adlow's Napoleon In Italy, 1796-1797.[1]
    it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
    • The article goes into a lot of detail but is generally compliant.
  4. It has a neutral point of view.
    it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
  5. It is stable.
    it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    • There is was some prior content dispute as recorded in the talk page but the contributions do not seem to be substantive to the current version and there is no current evidence of edit wars.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
    • Bonaparte di Edouard Detaille.jpg needs better source information.
    • Paintings of Napoleon I on the battlefield.jpg and Myrbach-Battle of Lodi.jpg require a license parameter that specifies "why the underlying work is public domain in both the source country and the United States."
    • Note that Rampon Monte Legino.jpg, Dagobert Sigmund von Wurmser.png, 1801 Antoine-Jean Gros - Bonaparte on the Bridge at Arcole.jpg and Traité de Campo-Formio 12 sur 12 - Archives Nationales - AE-III-50bis.jpg have different PD tags to the other reproduced paintings. Is this worth replicating?
    • The remaining images have appropriate CC and PD tags.
    images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
    • The images are extensive and appropriate, including maps, paintings of the battles and pictues of the participants.

@Sir MemeGod: Thank you for an interesting article. It's was a pleasure to read it. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look, including spot checks on the sources. simongraham (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on it, currently I'm on the "legacy" portion but still need to do a few other reference things. :) SirMemeGod  22:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Simongraham: How does it look now? SirMemeGod  12:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir MemeGod: Excellent work. This looks nearly done to me. Please see my comments above. simongraham (talk) 00:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir MemeGod: That looks great. I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 06:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Italian_campaign_of_1796–1797/GA1&oldid=1254463272"