# Talk:First Massacre of Machecoul

This review is transcluded from Talk:First Massacre of Machecoul/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 14:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll review this one shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay - RL took over for a while. As for the GAR:

No disambiguation links - no action required
The Britannica link is dead. While dead links should be kept per WP:KDL, WP:GACR note 4 specifies that dead link refs are not acceptable if they are bare-URL refs, and I'm afraid that one is a bare-URL ref - at least I believe so after reading WP:BURL. Could you fix that ref or find it in an archive or something?
I'm not clear on referencing of the note 1. Is that note referenced to Graeme Fife, Terror.  p. 108? What about the final sentence of the note?
Is there a particular reason for having some references in Surname, Name format (e.g. Joes, Anthony James), and others in "Name Surname" format (e.g. James Maxwell Anderson)? No major issue, but still...
"General Hoche and Counterinsurgency" reference (#7 right now) points to a page which does not display anything of relevance to the topic. Is the url wrong?
Please add ISBNs (or OCLCs), publisher and year information to book sources where those are missing.
Is reference #14 "For an explanation..." a note or a citation? Looks, like the former, so I'm curious.
I'll pause the review here until the referencing issues are resolved in order to avoid doing a prose review twice (should there be any changes of the body text in the process). I watchlisted this page, so just ping me here when this is done. Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I think I've fixed them all.  14:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, all issues appear to be fixed except referencing of the final sentence of note #1, so please fix that one too.
To continue:

There is a duplicate link: Civil Constitution of the Clergy which should be removed per WP:OVERLINK
All external links are reported fine by checklinks - no action required
All images seem to be suitable, properly licenced and accompanied by appropriate captions - no action required
If the lieutenant (in the body prose and the infobox) corresponds to Lieutenant, you might as well link the term
The town of Pornic is introduced in the 2nd paragraph of the Massacre section, and then its location described in the 3rd paragraph of the section. If its location is significant, wouldn't it be better off in the 2nd paragraph at the first instance of the town's mention?
At any rate (re Pornic), the distance of 10 miles should be provided with a conversion using convert template.
The second sentence of the "Contemporary reports" subsection begins with "claimed to be among the ..." (lowercase) indicating something may be missing there.
The link to fr:Louis-Charles-César Maupassant should not be there per WP:INTER, you may either drop the link or add a redlink to Louis-Charles-César Maupassant. As an option, you may create a stub article (providing it would comply with WP:GNG or other relevant policy) where a link to French wiki would be acceptable through interwiki links.
Ditto for Jacques Garnier de Saintes and other possible links to the French wiki I might have not noticed.
In "View from Paris", is there a particular reason to italicize the words "radical" and "for"?
removed italics on radical, but not of for/against.  italics for emphasis.
The exclamation mark at the end of "... if there were only 30,000, it would be a simple matter of putting them all to the sword, but there are so many!" made me wonder if that is a quotation - and if quotation marks are missing there then.
The first instance of Loire in the body prose (Aftermath) should be wikilinked
I think Lt. should be dropped from "Lt. Ferre" per WP:SURNAME, and the name was previously typed as Ferré - I'm not a speaker of French, so I have no clue which is right.
The infobox would be better off if "Pierre-Claude Ferré, lieutenant of National Guard" were shortened to "Pierre-Claude Ferré" (and likewise for others) - the explanation who they were exactly is in the prose.
The word "Approximately" in the infobox strength section can be dropped per MOS:UNCERTAINTY
I must pause now, but I'll return shortly - there's little left to go over. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I think I got them all.  I use the fr wikilinks so that I can find the info later.  But I did take them out.  auntieruth (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Almost there:

There's still the reference for the final sentence of the note #1 outstanding. Should the reference found in the middle of the note be moved to the back or something?
There's Lt. Claude Philippe Ferré mentioned in the Aftermath, yet elsewhere it's Pierre-Claude Ferré - are those two different persons? If those are two people, Lt. should be expanded to Lieutenant, if not, it should be just Ferré (per WP:SURNAME) without the rank.
Louis-Charles-César Maupassant in the Aftermath should be just Maupassant per WP:SURNAME
Royal and Catholic Army should not be italicized per WP:ITALICS
The infobox specifies the name of Louis La Roche Saint André, yet in the body prose it is not found. The infobox should repeat info presented and referenced in the body prose, so Louis La Roche Saint André should either be removed from the infobox or added to the body prose along with an explaination of his relevance
Similarly, I can't find 15-20 killed in streets and 150-200 executed prisoners (the figures that is) specified in the prose. Could you point those out for me if I missed it. All I could surmise from the article prose is "up to 200 killed" and from that I'd say that the infobox Casualties and losses section should say "up to 200 killed" in the column assigned to the French Republic.
I think this is the last set of issues to be addressed. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

How is "up to 200 killed" any different than approximately X killed?    I'll fix the other things.  auntieruth (talk)
I'd interpret the former as conceivably anywhere between 1 and 200, but likely 100-200, and the latter as 200, plus or minus 10-20. Now that I read the article once more, I saw it says "about 200". Regardless, the infobox should repeat what's said in the prose, so in this case "about 200" is the way to go. I could not find the "15–25 died in the streets" bit in the article prose, so if that's to be kept in the infobox, it should be noted (and referenced) in the prose. If the situation were reverse - i.e. the article prose said "about 200 were killed, including 15–25 in the streets" and the infobox just stated "about 200 killed", that would be just fine.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I also saw you changed the name of Ferré to Pierre-Claude Ferré in the Aftermath section, but now assuming this is the same Ferré as in the preceding text, it should be just "Ferré" instead of "Lt. Pierre-Claude Ferré" per WP:SURNAME. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
okay, I think I've fixed that (again).  I left it at Lt. Ferré.  Re the numbers of dead, it's hard to tell, because of the estimates given by different sides of the event.  The description of numbers is in "Massacre" section.  I tried not to rely on Boullemer's numbers, because they were so patently over-stated.  auntieruth (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I read the article a couple of more times and could not find any mention of 15-25 killed in the streets, so I took the liberty of aligning the infobox with explicitly stated "about 200 killed". If you wish to restore this bit, I strongly urge you to say "15-25 were killed in the streets" explicitly in the prose and reference it there. As this was the last obstacle to GA, I'll pass the article now. Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)