# Talk:Watermill at Opwetten

This review is transcluded from Talk:Watermill at Opwetten/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 22:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I will be working on this over the next day or two.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)  Done see below--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


### Overview
The article is well-written, the prose is clear and concise, and it follows Manual of Style guidelines. There is no evidence of original research. The information is verifiable, with inline citations, albeit often in Dutch. The two sources in English show good paraphrasing; good faith is assumed for the information from the Dutch sources. The history and description of the water mill are covered at a fairly high level, definitely without going into unnecessary detail.
I did not see much in English that could be used to expand the article. I added two English sources for someone that wanted to explore Van Gogh's work in the area, including the water mill - or water mills more generally, with limited info about this mill. The article looks to be pretty stable - the only potential issue that I see is that the article was tagged with an orphan tag, but the tag was removed with only  one article that links to it: Nuenen, Gerwen en Nederwetten. I've made two suggestions below. It is neutral. Images are used well - and there are no copyright issues for the files in commons.
I worked on many van Gogh articles, so this was fun for me. There are just a couple of questions / suggestions, so I'm guessing that this will be pretty quick to resolve.


### Content
I made some minor copy edits, switched order of a couple of sentences, and made a few adjustments for tense - which you can see in this comparison. And then made one minor spacing tweak and two paragraph break tweaks in this version. (If I made them all in one version it would have been harder to track the changes).
Please take a look and see if this makes sense to you. I thought it was probably quicker and less hassle to make the minor tweaks rather than list them here.
Regarding "In 1664 the mill burned down partially." Burned down partially - is a little awkward. What do you think about saying it partially burned down? Or suffered fire damage?
"Cullen millstones from Mayen (Cullen" for 'Cologne', where such millstones were marketed from". This also seems a bit awkward, but I tried to figure out a way to reword it and I didn't come up with anything that was any better. If you can think of something, great, if not, that's fine, too.


### Links to other articles
Potential articles to link to include:

Water Mill at Opwetten
possibly see alsos on neighboring mills, see WP query
I'll put it on hold for seven days to give you time for the items to be addressed. Please respond here with any comments or questions. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear CaroleHenson, thanks for taking the time to go over the article. I agree with the content changes. I have changed the text about the fire in 1664 to "partially burned down". Unfortunately I do not know of any better way to expres the The Cullen millstone part. Concerning the links, I have made links to Water Mill at Opwetten and added a link back from that article. I did not know an article existed about this painting and am pleased to see it does. I have added info about the two neighbouring mills to this article, however they both do not have an article yet. In due time either I myself or someone of the mill project will make these articles and I will add a link back. Let me know if there is anything else. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Sure, there's one grill that I saw referred to with the one in Opwetten -- but I forget the context (one of the best in the Netherlands, etc.) - but I'm pretty sure it started with at G and there's a WP article for it. Does that by any chance ring a bell with you?--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't ring a bell. - Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Yikes, I'm not sure either... I see the cool next upstream/downstream tack you took in the article! And, I added a see also section, so you've got more articles linking to yours! Yeah, it really helps with readership. I passed the article a bit ago and I see that the icon has already been placed on the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the review. The articles you linked were also written by me, so that means tripple effect in readership for me ;) . All the best, Taketa (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)