Talk:Pandour Corps

Pandour Corps has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: October 25, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Military history: Dutch / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Dutch military history task force
	European military history task force

GA Review

Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:06, 25 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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pandour Corps/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: DonBeroni (talk · contribs) 13:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 21:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this shortly. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Spot-checked what sources I could. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	Placing this on hold until the nominator addresses my feedback. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] Everything looks good now. Article is sources, well written and neutral. No major issues on my end. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, dissatisfaction with their poor treatment led to a brief mutiny Please expand on this. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a bit confused by what you mean here; perhaps you can explain it a bit further. The unit's 1795 mutiny is covered in detail in the #Service section of the article. It is included in the lede in a summary style, which condensed the reference to the mutiny in the Service section into one sentence. The current sentence is "However, dissatisfaction with their poor treatment led to a brief mutiny, which was resolved when Governor Abraham Josias Sluysken granted the mutineers several concessions", which I think is a reasonably satisfactory summary of the 1795 mutiny. What do you think I should expand on here? DonBeroni (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Upon reading through a second time I don't really think there is much to expand on. I wrote that comment before reading the rest of the article. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In 1780, the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War between the Dutch Republic and Great Britain broke out, and loyal Coloured people in the Cape Colony were recruited by the VOC authorities into the 200-strong Bastard Hottentots Corps in 1781. The wording here is a bit awkward, could you rephrase a bit? IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Rephrased DonBeroni (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hesitating to militarily confront the British outright It's really hard to figure out what you are trying to say here. Could you reword? IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The meaning here was that they didn't want to attack the British invaders. I've rephrased it. DonBeroni (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Looks good. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:02, 25 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.