Wikipedia:Peer review/Franco-Prussian War/archive1

Franco-Prussian War

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have an intrest in nominateing this article for a GA sometime in the future and any and all comments regarding it would be welcome.…

Thanks, Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 20:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RJHall – It is a well-developed article with some good content. Here's a few comments:

Parts of the article are badly in need of inline citations. I'd expect to see at least one citation per paragraph.
"It is thought that..." may be considered weasel words. See WP:AWW. That sentence should also be cited, especially since it expresses a key opinion from the Prussian ruler.
"...400,000 regular soldiers, some veterans of previous..." This sentence is a little ambiguous since it is unclear whether the 400,000 includes the veterans or if those are in addition.
Unique terms like "mitrailleuse" and "batteries" should be wikilinked.
"The army was still equipped..." the 'still' is unnecessary here since the comparison follows later in the sentence.
While expressive, I'm not sure that some of the wording may be encyclopedic. For example, "...and blistering rate of fire...", "...two blundering battles...", "...proved its worth...", "...bloody little battle...", "...a never ending attack...", "...now steamrolling...". These could be worded so as to make it clear what is meant without using colloquialisms.
"The vast German and French armies...": I'd remove the 'vast' here, since it is an opinionated term and the total numbers have already been described.
"...defenses of Metz indefinitely." The use of 'indefinitely' here seems odd. Perhaps it means until the end of hostilities?
For more enjoyable reading, please split the first, massive paragraph of the "Summary of military events" section into two or more paragraphs. There are also a number of words and names in here that are not linked, but may be linked later. The first occurrence should be linked instead. Examples include Saarbrücken, Metz and Léon Gambetta.
The "French and Prussian naval activities" section appears incidental to the main topic. I'm surprised it is located so early in the article. It seems a distraction.
"The Austro-Hungarians, still smarting after their defeat by Prussia..." What defeat?
"...under immense domestic pressure..." Immense here seems like non-encyclopedic language. If there is a quote you could use, that would work instead. Otherwise I'd remove 'immense' since it is vague and a little hyperbolic.
"...one railway there led to the German hinterland which could be easily defended by a single force..." Easily defend the railroad or the hinterland? Please disambiguate.
"...spread 20 miles (32 km) apart in depth..." I think the "in depth" needs clarification here. Is this saying they were spread out within a 20 mile diameter?
"...forcing each division to seek out basic provisions along with the representatives of the army supply arm that was supposed to aid them." Please disambiguate this statement.
"Douay himself was..." Unnecessary "himself". "The fighting within the town itself..." Unnecessary "itself". "The two armies clashed again only two days later..." Unnecessary "only".
"were not in vain- Frossard" Please use an em-dash here.

... at this point I think this article needs a copy edit. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]