Talk:Frederick the Great/GA1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: CIN I&II (talk · contribs) 15:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to review this article for it's nomination of good article. The only link I have to the editing of it I believe is just asking a question in the talk page.

CIN I&II Thank you for taking on this review! In addition to the high rate of hits per day, this article has many watchers and a number of thoughtful editors, such as . So, hopefully we'll be able to get this in Good Article shape quickly. Wtfiv (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wtfiv Yes, it looks like a really good article (not using the term in a wikipedia sense), so I'll make sure to keep reviewing it as a priority. Also sorry for not looking at it much yesterday, I had a Euro History test.

CIN I&II No problem, and no hurry. I hope the test went well for you! Wtfiv (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

The references of the article are really well made, although 102 I think should have a bit more specification that it is not the online version of the Encyclopedia Britannica in case someone might misread that, just it's okay without that. Honestly the references are all really good and well made. --CIN I&II (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix that, thankfully Wtfiv made those tidy references. So it should be no trouble!Chariotsacha (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CIN I&II For reference 102, would it be okay to keep it as is? The citation uses the standard Wikipedia template {{EB1911}} template, so the format is automated and standardized for the Wikisource 1911 version of Encyclopedia Britannica. Wtfiv (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Review request as (talk) may be engaged in other obligations.

Wtfiv Yeah I'm saying it is okay, just was saying that I got a bit confused with it. --CIN I&II (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CIN I&II Thanks! I can definitely see your point. The good thing though is the 1911 is out of copyright and fully accessible. Wtfiv (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a good thing. It did take me a moment to realise it though, so I thought I should include that in the review. --CIN I&II (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pause on Review

CIN I&II (talk) may have had other commitments, and may not be able to review this page. So I reset the request. I did let CIN I & II know that we're more than willing to continue the shared project if time allows Wtfiv (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]