Contents

Talk:Battle of Borgerhout

Battle of Borgerhout has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: October 9, 2014. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Borgerhout article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Dutch / European / Spanish / Early Modern This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Dutch military history task force European military history task force Spanish military history task force Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Borgerhout/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 23:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well-written

a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct

b. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

The article contained quite a few, but nevertheless minor, errors like MOS:DATEFORMAT, all of which I have fixed as I read through the article.

• Verifiable with no original research

a. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

b. It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

c. It contains no original research

• Broad in its coverage

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic

b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

• Neutral

It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

• Stable

It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

• Illustrated

a. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

b. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

• Pass, fail or hold?

With the article meeting the GA-criteria I'm going to pass it. Good job people. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know where the long footnote for Vandewiele 1990 went? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keith-264, the article history suggests that there was never any such footnote. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC) Editing to add: I think I've tracked it down though: https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/293547 --Andreas Philopater (talk) 12:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]