# Talk:Battle of Noordhorn

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Noordhorn/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cdtew (talk · contribs) 14:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm happy to review.  I'll note that at the outset, there are a number of formatting issues with pictures appearing below the sources in the article that need to be corrected.  Additionally, there are several paragraphs without citations at the end.  Note that per WP:IC, all statements have to be cited, which always means that the final sentence of a paragraph cannot be orphaned and cite-less.  I'll put this on hold for you for one (1) week to fix the citation issues and formatting.  Cdtew (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for reviewing. I'll fix the citations issues, but I don't understand what happens with the pictures.--Weymar Horren (talk) 06:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I think the article is suitably referenced now. Can you explain me what's the problem with the images? --Weymar Horren (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Weymar, for some reason every image starting with "Siege of Steenwijk" is showing up below the references section.  Yesterday, however, they looked fine.  You may want to try Template:Stack if you haven't already.  Cdtew (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Done. Looks good, now? --Weymar Horren (talk) 05:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Almost - it was looking strange on my monitors and ipad, but that's because you only need one stack template, and that can be combined with the infobox.  See what I did, and if you aren't a fan, undo it and try alternative positioning.  You may still want to take images out of the stack template, and put them on the left side of the page to move them up.  I'll let you do the rearranging if you'd prefer.


### Comments
In the lede: "Dutch stateholder of Friesland" - I think in this instance it's preferable not to use transliteration, but to either use Stadtholder, or to use a more descriptive English phrase like "head of state" or "governor".  I think the former is preferable for flavor purposes, and because it's a phrase unique to the Dutch provinces.  Be sure to change throughout to whatever you decide.
Fixed.
Lede: "had changed sides" - you may want to clarify, changed from what to what?
Fixed. I've put he "shifted its allegiance from the Dutch to the Spanish side".
Lede: "able leadership of John Norreys" - violates NPOV; if there's something else you're trying to describe her, use a different method.
Fixed.
"During the persecution of the States' troops" - Persecution has both a negative connotation and seems odd here.  Perhaps you mean "during the attack on/pursuit of"?
Fixed.
"He was considered "a leader of eminent skill and ability"" - it's important to put by whom he was so considered, in order to avoid NPOV issues.
Fixed. I've added the name of the historian.
"forced by the Union of Arras" - you may want to give a little context; who was in the Union, and why did they force this?  Trying to help you avoid having EASTEREGGs.
Fixed.
"a flag of German reiters" - I think you need to explain what a "flag" is and what a "reiter" is.
I've changed "flag" for company, and added what a reiter was.
"Von Langen was angry for he had been paid by the Dutch with false coins" - "because he had been paid"?  Or something similar?
Fixed.
"which ended by distributing 40,000 escudos amongst the mutineers" - who ended it?  This makes it sound like it spontaneously ended and distributed money amongst themselves".
Fixed. It was Verdugo who distributed the money.
You use "States General" often (perhaps should be wikilinked to States-General of the Netherlands or a more historical article?), and General States once; be consistent in which one you use.
Fixed. Better States-General.
"the ground on the Spanish right was smoothed to canalize the English progression" - this is awkward phrasing.  Perhaps "the Spanish had smoothed the ground on their right in order to funnel English units..."
Fixed.
"forlorn" - this doesn't seem to make much sense.  Is this a unit type?
Fixed. It is a forlon hope.
"as the Prince William of Orange favored the Norreys despite Morgan's" - could probably remove "the" from before "Prince" and "Norreys", unless Prince William favored the Norreys (as in, their family).
Fixed.
"as they advanced over the Spanish positions" - As they advance towards?  Or were they literally advancing over the Spanish positions?
Fixed.
"walloons" - should be capitalized, should it not, as it is a nationality?  Make sure this is consistently done.
Fixed.
"On the left, on the other hand, Count Willian Louis advanced with his remaining cavalry" - which side was he with?  And is the name Willian, or "William Louis", mentioned previously?
Fixed. He is the same count, and he was with the Dutch side.
"could not stand Verdugo's rush" - doesn't work well; perhaps "could not resist" or "could not stand up to"?
Fixed.
"Unaware, the victorious English infantry continued pressing back the Spanish right till its quarters." - needs a little clarification.  Perhaps "Unaware of the Spanish success on the other side of the field, the English infantry continued pressing back the Spanish right flank until they reached the Spanish camp"?
Fixed.
"attempted to retreated" - should be "attempted to retreat" or "retreated"
Fixed.
"Not only most the flags, but also all the English artillery was lost." - awkward phrasing; perhaps something simpler like "Most of the English flags and all of their artillery were lost."?
Fixed.
"achieving a "tremendous success" in Gelderland." - again, NPOV issue unless you describe who said this, or just describe it as a "success"
Fixed.
"Over the following months many English soldiers, amongst them Captain Roger Williams, unpaid, decimated by disease and disappointed by the progress of the war," -- needs some rephrasing.  Perhaps "Over the following months many English soldiers, who were unpaid and decimated by disease...etc..."
Fixed.
"Even Norreys, in the end, left the States' service and put himself at Anjou's orders" - should probably end "under Anjou's command"
Fixed.
Most Importantly: "The Spanish army's losses were slight: only one was killed, Francisco Verdugo's drummer." - Really?  I mean, great disparities in casualties aren't unheard of, but this one is hard to think as true.  Given that your source says "scarcely any one of note was killed", it makes me believe there were certainly more.  If no total number is known, I think it's safest to say "unknown."  Does it really make sense that an entire wing of the Spanish army was beaten back to its camps after a failed assault, and none were killed?  I think this needs some thought/revision.  The citation to a contemporary Spanish source, who can be presumed (unless clearly established otherwise) to have sympathies with the Spanish would not constitute a Reliable source, due to bias, among other issues.  I would suggest finding a modern source that speculates at the number of casualties, or find a countervailing source (an English or Dutch one, perhaps) that estimates the Spanish casualties.  That way you can present it to the reader as "Spanish source state that their army only had one casualty, but Dutch sources claim the Spanish suffered X deaths during the battle".
Fixed. Sadly, I have not found English or Dutch estimations of the Spanish losses. Thus, I have chosen the second way.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weymar Horren (talk • contribs) 16:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


### Images
File:De vergeefse belegering van Steenwijk door Graaf van Rennenberg (Lalaing) in 1580-81 (Jan Luyken).jpg - likely needs a PD tag for the EU, since it's not a US-published image
Fixed.
File:John Norreys.png - needs a full PD-Art template (ie: there should be no red error language on the image page)
Fixed.
Overall, the article is well-written and enjoyable to read.  It seems there are a few NPOV issues, mainly due to the bulk of sources being Spanish sources.  Anything you can do to even it up will help.  Additionally, it may be helpful to add some of the sources you're using in the Notes section to the Bibliography section so you won't have to have a full citation in the Notes section.  Consider using Template:Harvard citation for your footnotes to make things more fluid and interconnected.  I will keep this on hold for another week for you to work on this.  Let me know if you have any questions.

Just checking n Weymar - I noticed that many of these changes haven't been addressed, and that the week ends tomorrow from when I made the suggestions.  If you need extra time,let me know, but if these comments aren't addressed, I will have to fail it. If that happens, it can be denominated at any time!  Cdtew (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I think that all the issues have been fixed.--Weymar Horren (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


### Closing
Weymar, this is in fairly good shape now. I think there may be a little more refinement that can be done to streamline the prose, and I did a few more copy edits, but I think this passes GAN now. Please feel free to revert my edits if you disagree with any. Cdtew (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, very much :) --Weymar Horren (talk) 06:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Noordhorn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103211951/http://www.bookprep.com/read/uc1.$b517250 to http://www.bookprep.com/read/uc1.$b517250
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)