This article needs lots of work in the prose area. All you need to do now is expand the lead. Piotr brought up something that I had missed that is worrying me. I am now requesting a second opinion from a more experienced review.
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "
clear and
concise", without
copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
over the allies which altered for the peace-That wording doesn't make sense.
attacked by a coalation of the three nation Saxony, Russia, and Denmark-Norway-Possible rewording? I'm not sure about that.
to secure her back-I don't know who or what that refers to, should be changed to its or reworded to make it more concise.
Augustus dropped the siege of Riga-Too informal. Should be reworded.
march against Peter I besieging Narva, to save the city.-Possibly Peter I, who was besieging Navra?
met in the battle of Narva ending in a decisive Swedish victory which crippled the Russian army greatly-Needs some sort of rewording.
another Swedish victory, however, without the decisive outcome-Decisive according to whom? Should be reworded.
There a lot of other things that need to be reworded before this becomes GA-status. If you don't know which other instances there may be, please comment here or on my talk page.
It looks a lot better. Thanks for your copyediting work,
Volunteer Marek!
Comment by jrcrin001: I see the problem as mentioned by Piotrus. There are two general formats often used in Wikipedia for references. 1) All source citations inline as references and cited in the reference section. 2) References that cites specific pages of sources (like books) that are called notes that are fully cited in the reference section. You use the latter. When the former (1) is used, this allows for another type of note section for comments and observations. These are in essence footnotes. These foot notes do not directly belong in the article or reference section but are often helpful to the reader. For an example, please see:
Louis H. Carpenter#Notes. I hope this helps.
Jrcrin001 (
talk)
06:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)reply
This article needs lots of work in the prose area. All you need to do now is expand the lead. Piotr brought up something that I had missed that is worrying me. I am now requesting a second opinion from a more experienced review.
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "
clear and
concise", without
copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
over the allies which altered for the peace-That wording doesn't make sense.
attacked by a coalation of the three nation Saxony, Russia, and Denmark-Norway-Possible rewording? I'm not sure about that.
to secure her back-I don't know who or what that refers to, should be changed to its or reworded to make it more concise.
Augustus dropped the siege of Riga-Too informal. Should be reworded.
march against Peter I besieging Narva, to save the city.-Possibly Peter I, who was besieging Navra?
met in the battle of Narva ending in a decisive Swedish victory which crippled the Russian army greatly-Needs some sort of rewording.
another Swedish victory, however, without the decisive outcome-Decisive according to whom? Should be reworded.
There a lot of other things that need to be reworded before this becomes GA-status. If you don't know which other instances there may be, please comment here or on my talk page.
It looks a lot better. Thanks for your copyediting work,
Volunteer Marek!
Comment by jrcrin001: I see the problem as mentioned by Piotrus. There are two general formats often used in Wikipedia for references. 1) All source citations inline as references and cited in the reference section. 2) References that cites specific pages of sources (like books) that are called notes that are fully cited in the reference section. You use the latter. When the former (1) is used, this allows for another type of note section for comments and observations. These are in essence footnotes. These foot notes do not directly belong in the article or reference section but are often helpful to the reader. For an example, please see:
Louis H. Carpenter#Notes. I hope this helps.
Jrcrin001 (
talk)
06:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)reply