# Talk:Heinrich Sigismund von der Heyde

This review is transcluded from Talk:Heinrich Sigismund von der Heyde/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 22:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I will review, comments to follow over next few days. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, there are quite a few issues here but most will be sorted with a copyedit. 
Infobox

The place of birth in the "Born" field has spacing issues  Done
Seven Years War is mentioned in the infobox but isn't explicitly stated in the body of the article   Done
Awards: is being listed on the statue considered to be an award?  It's a commemoration....? and yes I'd consider it an award
Lead

Kolberg is linked on the second mention, not the first Done
His exact date of birth not stated (it is in the infobox)  Done
"the Order Pour le Merite": shouldn't it be the "the Order of Pour le Merite"?  Not really.  People want to add Order, but it really is just Pour le Merite....
Family

"...born in 1703 Schacksdorf in...": there's a missing word in there. Also I suggest putting some context for what Schacksdorf is, since you later refer to "heir to Schacksdorf"  Done
Military career

The 2nd sentence of the 1st paragraph mentions a series of ranks; these should all be lower case. I suggest that these be presented more in sentence style for better flow. Also, chief of staff of what?  Done
"In 1741 he received his first Grenadier company": received? I assume you mean given command of... Done
No context for "There must then have been inconsistencies between him and General Leopold von Anhalt-Dessau." I appreciate sources may not be clear on the "inconsistencies" but who is Anhalt-Dessau to Heyde?  Done
link Königsberg, Kolberg  Done
Sieges of Kolberg

"became a deputy commander, and on 3 October 1758," deputy commander of what? The town or a unit? Also, the way the sentence is structured suggests a relationship between the promotion and the attack on 3 October.  Done
"He tried": unusual language, suggest "his forces made"  Done
King who? Suggest linking as well  Done
"the second siege took place". I suggest for clarity and context amending the first sentence of the first paragraph to "commencing his first siege..."  Done
"Sweden and Russia included the fortress": included?  Done
"the Austrians, at which the Austrians"; repeated usage of Austrians and furthermore, I thought the besieging forces were Swedish/Russian. Where did the Austrians come from?  clarified
"image of General Werner, one with the image of the Colonel Heyde"; no need for the ranks in this sentence   Done
"Friedrich wrote: I am not infallible; in this man I have been greatly wrong.": who is Friedrich and why was he greatly wrong about Heyde?
"promoted o the rank of ": typo in there    Done
Final siege and captivity

"3 3 September 1761": repeated numbers    Done
"the Friedrich Eugen of Württemberg"; this is a name not a title so "the" is not appropriate  Done
"but he too struggled": who else was struggling with supplies?  Done
"preparing storms": storms?  Done
"The troops under General Dubislav von Platen.." No antecedence for "The troops", some context is required  Done
I don't think it necessary to use italics for emphasis   Done
"the Duke's troops"; who is the Duke (unless it is Friedrich, but then you will need to clarify that they are the same)Friedrich is the King.  I think it's clearer now.
"ended the Russia's"; "the"?  Done
"Heyde was reinstated.."; in this sentence, Heyde's name is stated twice. The second usage could be "he". Also reinstated to what?  Done
"in Königsberg in the fortress of Friedrichsburg"; in the first paragraph of the military career section it is stated the fortress is near Konigsberg not in it
"Marienkirche of Kolberg"; link this or provide a translation of Marienkirche  Done
"Kolberg, broke"; replace the comma with and, the two are linked   Done
Sources

Need to ensure formatting of all sources are consistent Done
Note 4: place of publication? Also, the year of publication is stated twice  Done
Note 5: Shouldn't the obit link be part of the title or chapter?  Done
issue with the presentation of the link for note 6, and what does np mean? no publisher)  written out
That's it for now, I may have more comments once the above issues have been addressed. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

thank you @Zawed:! auntieruth (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@Auntieruth55: Hi, just resuming this review. Reviewing your changes, they look good. I like the use of the box for his promotions. I have made a few edits, check you are OK with these. I realised I didn't check the images first time so have done this; they look to have appropriate tags. One final issue: the sentence "Heyde, deployed his approximately troops..." is missing the number of troops. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
:*thank you @Zawed:!  added 700....he didn't have a large force!  thanks much, your tweaks look good.  Cheers, auntieruth (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
I'm satisfied that this meets GA standard. Passing now. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)