Talk:Siege of Montmédy

Siege of Montmédy was nominated as a Warfare good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 23, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Military history: European / French / German

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 not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	French military history task force
	German military history task force

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Djmaschek (talk · contribs) 05:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comment

I am starting the review. While I appreciate any articles translated from French to English, this article appears to have some obvious issues. I will address the issues in detail later. Djmaschek (talk) 05:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review 1

There is no rule that one must submit an article for B class review before seeking a GA class review, but it is usually a good idea. Regrettably, this article fails GA criteria. The specifics are as follows. Djmaschek (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct: ✗ Fail
- The article changes from present tense to past tense frequently. When writing an article about history, it is normal to use past tense. However, I have one history book where the author used present tense. In the case of this article, there are very many places where it changes from past tense to present tense and back. I strongly recommend consistently using past tense throughout the article.
- Some sentences look as if they were translated using Google Translate. There is nothing wrong with using an auto-translator to help with translation, but sometimes auto-translators will select the wrong words. The author must then choose the correct English word. Here is an example of a bad translation from the last paragraph in the article: "the fear of seeing the powder magazines jump, determined Commander Tessier to give up the place..." Using the word "jump" in this context makes no sense to an English speaker. The proper wording is: "the fear that the powder magazines might detonate [or explode]..." There are a number of places where a wrong word is used, and it would be too tedious for me to list every example.
- Some sentences are written so that the meaning is lost. Here is an example: "They learn the next day that Marshal Patrice de MacMahon's army, coming from Châlons, has delivered and was off the loss at the Battle of Sedan with the following day being that a Saxon officer sent by the Royal Prince Albert of Saxony comes to inform the commander of Montmédy of the French defeat and to ask him very politely to surrender, which the commander Reboul refuses in the forms: "Sir, you know like me that ' a place of war cannot be surrendered without defending itself; take it if you can.". " It is not clear what the following expressions mean: "has delivered and was off the loss" and "refuses in the forms". There are also two periods (.) at the end and an unmatched quote mark (') in the middle.
- The first paragraph has a "citation needed" tag. Article fails B class.
Verifiable: ✓ Pass
Broad in its coverage: it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail: Semi-done
- This article about a minor siege is 34,000 Bytes. (The Battle of Sedan is only 20,000 Bytes and the Battle of Gravelotte is only 13,000. Admittedly, more could be written about these major battles.) This article contains far too much detail, including unnecessary detail. Here is an example: "On July 16, three days before the declaration of war, a rumour spread that a Prussian soldier crossed the border at Sierck-les-Bains, triggering a panic. The commander gathered the inhabitants in the square and made the necessary arrangements." The first sentence is of trivial interest. The second sentence does not give the reader much information.
Neutral: ✓ Pass
Stable: ✓ Pass
Illustrated ✓ Pass

Final review comment

Please submit this article for B class review. Another reviewer might have some more suggestions for improving the article. I sometimes use Google Translate when writing an article about the French Revolution and the only source is in French. Then, I often have to rewrite the sentence because the auto-translator selected the wrong words. You may resubmit for GA class review if you first: (1) make past tense/present tense consistent, (2) fix the citation needed, (3) fix the places where the auto-translator selected the wrong word, and (4) get rid of unnecessary detail. Djmaschek (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]