Talk:Battle of Bronkhorstspruit/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Djmaschek (talk · contribs) 03:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    Since everything else (except 4 - see below) seems to be in order, I will be checking mainly for typos, hanging clauses, unclear sentences, etc. which I will list below.
    Review 1 comments are listed below. Please fix or argue your case for not fixing. Djmaschek (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Introduction, paragraph 1, sentence 2: Add comma after Transvaal.
    • Introduction, paragraph 2: "was ambushed" (It seems to me that "ambushed" is the wrong word; "confronted" seems better.)
    • Introduction, paragraph 2: "discontinued" (discontinue) "the two sides engaged" (A better description might be: "the Boers attacked").
    • Changed as suggested. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, for some reason I hadn't been able to find it. No idea how. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Background, paragraph 1: "The last of these despite" (The last of these annexations occurred despite)
    • I don't see a pressing need for it, but sure, it does no harm. Changed. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Background, paragraph 2: "oppose the annexation and the reduction of the British garrison" (Unclear: Did the Liberals also oppose the reduction of the garrison or did they approve the reduction?)
    • Removed "and the reduction of the British garrison to two infantry battalions", at least for the time being. I can't for the life of me find which source this came from. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • British troop movement, paragraph 1: "wagons to acquired" (wagons to be acquired).
    • British troop movement, paragraph 1: Introduction says there were 34 wagons, so it needs to state that here, instead of "three times that number".
    • Changed to 34, but I'm not 100% happy with what it conveys. May tweak again before ACR. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • British troop movement, paragraph 2: The word "They" is used several times to describe Anstruther's column in this paragraph. Please first describe who "they" are. See next bullet.
    • British troop movement, paragraph 2, sentence 1: "they averaged" (Suggestion: Anstruther's men averaged/Anstruther's men and their dependents averaged).
    • Tweaked a few, let me know what you think. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • British troop movement, paragraph 2: "remained their" (remained there).
    • British troop movement, paragraph 2: "agitate local sympathies" (sympathizers?).
    • British troop movement, paragraph 3: "the column were only carrying" (the soldiers were only carrying).
    • Changed as suggested. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Boer commando: "on the 19 December" (on 19 December).
    • Opposing forces, paragraph 1: "uniforms, though it was phased out" (Plural: though they were phased out).
    • Yup, changed (I specifically had the red frock in my head, hence the singular. But yes. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Opposing forces, paragraph 2: "area, could vary in number" (area, it could vary in number).
    • Changed instead to "which depending on the population of the area could vary in number widely". Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Battle, paragraph 3: "suffered light only light casualties" (remove first "light").
    • But they were really really light! (Yes, changed!) Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aftermath: "for tended to" (for tending to).
    • Changed as suggested. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    c. (OR):
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
  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:
    This article has had its POV challenged as anti-Boer. I will keep this in mind when reviewing it and suggest neutral edits if needed. My comment here is that a source may be obviously biased, but that does not necessarily mean that it should not be used. A biased source may accurately report some details.
    • I did not detect any un-neutral writing. If there was any, it may have been corrected. Djmaschek (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although I used the framework of the original article, I essentially rewrote it completely, based on predominantly different sources. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

@Djmaschek: Thanks for the review. I had responded to each point above. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: For some reason, I'm not seeing your latest corrections. I will wait a day and try again. Djmaschek (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Djmaschek: Ha, I never clicked 'Publish changes'! Thankfully, I hadn't closed the window, so I've just put it through now. What a fool! Harrias (he/him) • talk 07:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: I still have a few comments. See next. Djmaschek (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro says Anstruther died of his wounds. Please include that in the narrative. I missed this on my first pass.
  • British troop movement: "the column averaged 9 miles (14 km) per day, but delays caused by river crossings and muddy trails meant they sometimes". What I tried to convey the first time was that the word "they" refers to "column" which is an "it". "They" would be appropriate if it referred to "soldiers" or "British", for example.
  • Oh yes, I see what you mean. Switched to "the British". Harrias (he/him) • talk 07:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposing forces, paragraph 1: Actually, I like "uniforms, though the red coat was phased out" even better. The average reader may have missed the fact that the British were wearing bright red coats and could be reminded here. (It's OK the way it is.)
  • Expanded as suggested. Harrias (he/him) • talk 07:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Djmaschek: Thanks for those, particularly the Anstruther one. I kept remembering I hadn't included it yet... and then kept forgetting to add it still! Harrias (he/him) • talk 07:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: GA class. Djmaschek (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Bronkhorstspruit/GA1&oldid=1145434118"