Talk:Klemens von Metternich/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DCI (talk · contribs) 00:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC) I plan on reviewing this article within the coming week. DCItalk 00:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• As I will have many comments, I am more than willing to complete corrections myself, in case you're busy this week. DCItalk 18:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Lead.
  • The opening sentence is quite long, but I am not sure we can do much about it.
  • I'm not sure about opening a sentence with "Soon after, however, he would be the foreign minister..."  Done
  • Change "at home" to "at this time".  Not done Clarified what I mean
• Early life
  • Is the first name necessary?
    • Surely the alternative is "Metternich was born into the House of Metternich" ? - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 00:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • He was the eldest son of the couple, having one elder sister"...could you change to but had one other sister?  Not done but clarified
  • The statement about swimming and horse-riding seems out of place in this sentence. Perhaps you could say something to the effect that his education included athletic activities, as well.  Done
  • The second paragraph in this section contains a few sentences that need grammar checking and also a quick check to make sure they don't incorporate too many clauses. I do not understand the last sentence, about looking "at east," unless it's supposed to be "at ease." Done
  • Please include the name of the French minister interrogated by Metternich. If you can, also include the names of the legislators. Was this, by any chance, the French turncoat Dumoriez?
    • It wasn't actually; it was a party sent to arrest him. The source does not name the Minister of War but it was non-contentiously Pierre de Ruel, marquis de Beurnonville, so I've added that in. How many commissioners accompanied him does for some reason look contentious; the French Wikipedia names four! - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 00:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Marriage and the Congress of Rastatt.
  • Many of the most influential... This sounds wordy. Why not change it to "influential British politicians?"  Done
• Ambassador
• Dresden and Berlin
  • What does the word "retiring" mean in this context? Was Frederick Augustus of Saxony withdrawn from the affairs of state? Including a more detailed word or explanation might clarify this.  Done
• Foreign Minister
• Detente with France
  • I'm not wild about this sentence: After returning to Austria Metternich witnessed Austria's defeat...  Done
  • When Napoleon was also asking after..." Is there a better way to word this?  Done
• Congress of Vienna
  • Check for minor errors (e.g., aid instead of the correct aide). Done
• Aachen, Teplice, etc.
  • Is this the best section name?
    • Meh, I'm not overly keen on it but it's designed to fit with the others without omission. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 00:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • captured by the allure of... Not sure about this wording.  Done
• Remaining sections
  • Although the article meets GA criteria, as explained below, I may add more comments here within the next few days to assist in making general corrections.

My major concern

My major concern is the first paragraph of Historical assessment. I understand that the comments in this paragraph are supposed to be from the point of view of an unfavourable historian, but unquoted phrases describing a "pointless" struggle and "a more enlightened chancellor" do not sound acceptable here on Wikipedia.

General comments/concerns

• Section headers eventually become quite small and a little hard to differentiate between. I understand this is necessary given the additional level-two sections at the bottom, but it's just something I noticed.
• There are more than a few redlinks in the page. Again, they're probably necessary, but it detracts from the overall appearance.
• Sourcing is excellent.

GA checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

This article is well-written and, with the exception of the errors outlined above, is ready to be listed as GA. In order to make A-class or FA, corrections will need to be made around the article, again as listed above, but I am ready to pass this as soon as my major concern is addressed.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The article's prose is quite good, but there are a few things that ought to be revised a little.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I cannot pass the article until I receive feedback or see corrections on Historical assessment.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am impressed with this article, and am happy to pass it for GA. DCItalk 21:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)