Talk:Treaty of Butre/GA1

GA Review

Greetings! I've decided to review this to the best of my possibilities, and I even researched the topic to see if I could find more information - so, I know how difficult this topic is to write on. I think for the most part this article meets good article standards, but here are some things that are of my own preference and you may or may not agree with them. Please note, that I won't 'fail' the article for you not agreeing with me and my opinion will change as you offer me your own opinions. But, here they are:

I know that you don't want to go off-topic too much, but I think the Background section could be improved. Personally, I don't like paragraph structures where they're short and the section contains many paragraphs, but I admit this is a personal point of view and I don't believe the Manual of Style supports me. Then again, the article already has a lot of background compared to the treaty, so it's up to you and you see how you could improve it. Perhaps it can be split into 'background', then have the 'contents' section and then have 'effects of the treaty' below; or something of that nature. It would certainly make the article a bit longer and more in depth (which is what is important). Currently, the background also includes information post-treaty, which wouldn't really be background information. Perhaps this calls for a fourth section titled 'British take-over', or something like that, and explains a little about the treaty when the Dutch transferred the territories to the British.
In my opinion, the list style under 'content' is not very attractive and perhaps it would be better to make that section into paragraphs. Each paragraph would deal with the subject matter that the bold currently emphasises. In effect, it would be similar, but without the bolded words at the beginning of each paragraph.

These are just suggestions, and I will promote the article. Good luck! JonCatalan (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will look into the suggestions. They are very valuable. Also because they contribute to the development of a format for smaller treaties. Michel Doortmont (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]