Talk:German occupation of Belgium during World War I

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

Belgium Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. European history Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Germany Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: European / German / World War I 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: /  European military history task force German military history task force World War I task force

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	German occupation of Belgium during World War I 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 15, 2015 Good article nominee Listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 22, 2014. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Flemish separatists took the German occupation of Belgium during World War I as an opportunity to declare independence in 1918?

This review is

transcluded from Talk:German occupation of Belgium during World War I/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 3family6 (talk · contribs) 17:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi 3family6 - many thanks for taking this on! —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "

   clear and concise", without copyvios

   , or spelling and grammar errors:

   No copyvios found.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   "The occupation ended as the Allied advance into Belgium during the Hundred Days Offensive from August 1918 but, in most areas, was only brought to an end in the aftermath of the armistice of November 1918." - I found this contradictory and confusing - was it ended, or not? Does this mean officially ended?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorted. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   "The CNSA became a symbol while also serving as a symbol of national unity and of passive resistance.[19]" - became a symbol of what while also a symbol of national unity?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorted. Good catch. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   "The policy escalated after the failure of deportation in 1917... ." - What was the failure of deportation? This needs to be elaborated.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   There is a section on this a bit further down and I'm reluctant to risk repeating content. I've rephrased it a bit though - does that make it any better? —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, that takes care of it.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   B.

   lists

   :

   Follows MOS standards.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an

   appropriate reference section

   :

   Reference sections are well-organized and follow consistent layouts.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   B. Citations to

   reliable sources, where necessary

   :

   Very well-cited to strongly reliable sources. Many are foreign language and/or are offline, so I'm accepting AGF.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   C. No original research:

   All content is verifiable and supported by reliable sources.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   All major aspects of the occupation are discussed.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   B.

   Focused

   :

   Article stays focused on the subject.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4. Is it
   neutral
   ?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutral, balanced discussion of the occupation.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Highly stable, mostly single-author article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are

   copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

   :

   Image have sufficient licensing.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   B. Images are provided if possible and are

   suitable captions

   :

   Images are relevant and usefully captioned.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

7. Overall: Only a few, minor issues with the prose.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Y Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Pass or Fail:

   All issues addressed, so I've passed that article. Good luck on your wikibreak, Brigade Piron.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Found missing oclc/isbn/issn etc changed isbn 10 to 13. Keith-264 (talk) 15:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]