Talk:Siege of Middelburg (1572–1574)

Siege of Middelburg (1572–1574) was nominated as a Warfare good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 24, 2014). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Siege of Middelburg (1572–1574) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: British / Dutch / European / Spanish / Early Modern

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	Dutch military history task force
	European military history task force
	Spanish military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

Netherlands

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles

Spain Low‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Siege of Middelburg (1572–1574)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 05:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC) I'll take this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Good Article Checklist[reply]

Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research.
Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Disambig links: Siege of Middelburg (1572–1574) links to 1 redirect which point back.
Reference check: No issues

Specific prose issue: "...on had recently been strengthened by a large number of untrained recruits..." - Mind fixing that wording? Comments: This article is very short for a two year long siege, but the content is lacking in quite a few areas. First of all, the lead is far too short to be an effective introduction, a WP:LEAD issue. The "Background" through the entire article needs to be copyedited. A major concern is the lack of proper comma usage and other minor details that add up to an issue with the prose itself. It is so prevalent that almost every paragraph contains at least one of these issues. Now, I know nothing of this particular topic and the readers should be expected to know very little as well - making this article, suffering from a lack of context, to have an additional problem. I reviewed this article from a hard copy, so no linking, and I check for "self contained", but even still, this article lacks the details from the command to the movements. The losses incurred, while noted, were not dealt with in the body text. I'll place this on hold for fixes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave this open since no activity for a week may be due to other interests. I'll leave it up for another week. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As there has been no activity, I will fail this as the issues are unresolved. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about this completely forgot about it since dealing with another GA nom. ChrisWet (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I'll reopen it for another week. Okay? :) ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will put this in a for Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors request but will sort out some of the issues. ChrisWet (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the first issue outlined changed to a number and removed large. Improved the background by added more of the causes of the revolt. ChrisWet (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the copyeditors have a large backlog, might have to put this on hold or fail it for now. Thanks. ChrisWet (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]