Rate
|
Attribute
|
Review Comment
|
1. Well-written:
|
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and
understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
|
- some of the prose is clunky, for example, "Trained as a civil engineer at the United States Military Academy, Beauregard served with distinction as an engineer in the Mexican-American War. Following a brief appointment at West Point in 1861, after the South seceded he resigned from the U.S. Army and became the first brigadier general in the Confederate States Army." This would be better rendered as "Trained as a civil engineer at the United States Military Academy, Beauregard served with distinction as an engineer in the Mexican-American War, and had a brief appointment to West Point in 1861. After the South seceded, he resigned from the U.S. Army and became the first brigadier general in the Confederate States Army." Despite the time gap, his appointment at West Point had more to do with his pre-secession positions than his post-secession ones, so I broke the sentences differently. I suggest you have another look at the article and do likewise. There is at least one more example of this in the lead alone.
Y
|
|
1b. it complies with the
Manual of Style guidelines for
lead sections,
layout,
words to watch,
fiction, and
list incorporation.
|
- lots of duplicate links, suggest you install the
User:Ucucha/duplinks script so you can identify and fix them easily
Y
- link of rank in infobox title seems unnecessary (and is an overlink)
|
2.
Verifiable with no original research:
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline.
|
|
|
2b.
reliable sources are
cited inline. All content that
could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
|
- The page ranges are quite wide in general, and the grouping of citations at the end of large paragraphs makes it quite difficult to assess this criteria. If you are planning to take this article to Milhist ACR or FAC, I would break down the citations quite a bit more within paragraphs. Only just acceptable for GA, IMO.
- I don't know about the lack of citations on the "In memoriam" section. These are a bit
WP:BLUE, but some sort of citation seems appropriate. I won't insist on it at GAN, but if taking further, I suggest you source it all.
|
|
2c. it contains
no original research.
|
|
3. Broad in its coverage:
|
|
3a. it addresses the
main aspects of the topic.
|
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see
summary style).
|
|
|
4.
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
|
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war or content dispute.
|
|
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as
images,
video, or
audio:
|
|
6a. media are
tagged with their
copyright statuses, and
valid non-free use rationales are provided for
non-free content.
|
- several of the image files are non-compliant, eg File:Bombardment of Fort Sumter, 1861.png and File:Pierre Beauregard.pageantofamerica.jpg have no PD-US tag, File:PGTBeauregard01.jpg used PD-US, but does not have a creator name, per "The creator and year of publication are essential information and must be provided.". File:Laure Villere Beauregard.jpg doesn't seem right either, as it is based on the death of the author, but no author is identified.
|
|
6b. media are
relevant to the topic, and have
suitable captions.
|
- The captions for the ones that are there are fine, but see my comment above about licensing.
|
|
7. Overall assessment.
|
On hold for seven days, one remaining image license needs fixing, or image needs to be removed. Some of the images sandwich text, regardless of which of my screens I look at. This should be fixed.
|