Talk:Klemens von Metternich/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mykleavens (talk) 12:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I've so far checked the history of and discussions about the article and, as it seems to be stable at present, I'm happy to review it. Metternich is a historical figure I've always found interesting. Given the size of the article, it will take time and I may decide to present interim reports on selected sections. --Mykleavens (talk) 12:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Initial report

I was about to fail the article immediately after first reading it on 4/5 June but, by the time I had written up my report, Jarry1250 started revising the lead which was then the weak point of the article and my main cause for concern. I decided to set the review aside for the time being until the new work had been completed and intended to read the article again yesterday (11 June) but a further set of inputs were being made.

I will say here that I expect the lead to be a well-written summary of the whole article, especially given its great length. Among the topics I expect to see, in both lead and article, are:

• Studied at Strasbourg and Mainz before being attached to the embassy at The Hague
• Austrian ambassador/minister at Dresden, Berlin and Paris
• Treaty of Fontainebleau
• Appointment as foreign minister
• Involvement in Bonaparte's marriage to Marie Louise
• Declaration of war against France
• Grand Alliance
• Ennoblement
• Congress of Vienna
• Politics of the German Confederation
• Austrian interests in Italy
• Arguably the key figure in European politics after 1815
• Discuss his politics, essentially reactionary and autocratic; and how this led in time to the 1848 revolutions throughout Europe
• Flight to England
• Eventual retirement and death
• Summary of personal life and family

Prior to recent updates the article was not well-written and contained what I consider to be unnecessary verbiage, some of it apparently copied direct from the sort of text book whose author delights in throwing the dictionary at his readers. A maxim here is to keep language simple so that the article flows and the reader does not have to stop every couple of sentences to ask "what does this mean?" I also spotted examples of terminology that would fail WP:WTW.

I haven't read the article again since the recent revisions began and will place the review on hold for the time being to allow the work to continue. --Mykleavens (talk) 05:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Any changes now made will be to expand/diversify the source base. They should involve few, if any, changes to content. I would be happy to address any WTW to may find and/or specific terminology you should should be avoided. In essence, I am happy for you to commence a fuller review.

As for the lead, if I condense your list slightly and strike the issues (I feel) are already adequately covered: Studied at Strasbourg and Mainz before being attached to the embassy at The Hague; Austrian ambassador/minister at Dresden, Berlin and Paris; Treaty of Fontainebleau; Appointment as foreign minister; Involvement in Bonaparte's marriage to Marie Louise< Declaration of war against France; Grand Alliance; Ennoblement; Congress of Vienna; Politics of the German Confederation; Austrian interests in Italy; Arguably the key figure in European politics after 1815; Discuss his politics, essentially reactionary and autocratic; and how this led in time to the 1848 revolutions throughout Europe; Flight to England; Eventual retirement and death; Summary of personal life and family.

So if we take the un-struck points, there are a few things I will add. "Grand Alliance" I'm not sure about. If you mean the Holy Alliance then yes, I should probably add that. "Led in time to the 1848 revolutions" I'm plain not sure about - sourced views seem thin on the ground on that issue. But a few things I can add, certainly. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 11:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Added and struck some more. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 12:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Added and struck some more (finished). - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 16:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Good article criteria

The article fails the GA review for the following reasons based on the GA criteria. It has been nominated too soon having not been properly copyedited and with the scope still undefined. The main problem is its length. It needs to be converted into a true summary of the major topics I outlined above with child articles created per most if not all of these key topics. I would advise that you follow the example of Winston Churchill and others that have been approached in this way. The relevant GA criteria are:

well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise – – frankly, no; it has not been subjected to a rigid copyedit and it needs this to be done before being nominated

(b) the spelling and grammar are correct – – as per the above; a rigid copyedit is needed to address numerous minor errors

(c) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for:

• lead sections – – the lead is heading in the right direction subject to a copyedit but I must repeat what I said above about the article being nominated before it was anywhere near ready; it still contains too many minor errors
• words to watch – – again, a rigid copyedit will weed out suspect words or phrases

broad in its coverage:

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail – – the article is far too long and should be split into a number of articles that cover several topics with this one presenting an effective summary of the whole subject

(c) it uses a summary style – – following on from (b), it is not a summary

stable – – no, it is not stable in that it was nominated before being ready and a lot of work has been done and is continuing to be done which effectively prevents a thorough review

I regret, therefore, that I must fail the article for GA. --Mykleavens (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I'm sorry that you felt that these were not issue that could be fixed within the confines of a "hold" period. Nonetheless, I'm sure we can draw up a list of edits to make.

I agree about the quality of prose in places; I shall nominate it for a "professional" copyedit (again). Any help fixing the "numerous minor errors" would be helpful on the spelling./grammar front; I will go over it again myself soon. Ditto "words to watch".

Do you mean to say that the lead section contains errors? Could you be more specific?

I disagree about the article being too long. It is certainly on the lengthy side, and I would not expect readers to read through all of it in one go. However, there is simply no clear way to divide the article in such a way that it can be summarised without removing important contextual details relevant to other sections. In short, I believe that the article is not long because of unnecessary details, but because of the sheer length of his career. I am prepared to argue this in an RfC if you would like to write a description of why you feel the article should be split.

For "summary style", I assume you contend that the article goes into "unnecessary detail". Could you be more specific? I don't necessarily disagree, I just can't see the wood for the trees.

Lastly, I disagree with your interpretation of the "stable" criterion. It is described not as whether there are content changes ongoing (which there virtually always are), but whether there are edit wars and/.or content disputes, neither of which is the case here.

Nonetheless, I look forward to working with you over the other issues. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 20:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• I am also insulted that the copyedit I did is considered not "rigid" enough.

Please supply examples of where this occurs Mykleavens. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I assumed (and still do) that they were added by my post-CE edits, Chaosdruid. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 08:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)