From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] WP:MilHist Assessment
A nice, lengthy, and detailed account, which even includes pictures and succession boxes. I believe this article rides the line between Start-class and B-class. (If only there were a C, showing more than just a good start, and less than a B, which is to my mind, an article well on its way towards its final form.) In any case, as I see it, the article wants for two main things. (1) Better organization on the page - rearrange the pictures and the text somehow so it doesn't seem quite so jumbled. (2) The introduction paragraph should summarize all I need to know about the subject, and his historical significance. Dates and place of birth are a fine "introduction," in the strict sense of the word, that it goes at the beginning of a chronological account. But I believe that intros should be separate from the chronological biological section. Otherwise, thank you for a very nice start on an interesting subject. LordAmeth 19:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- You call that detailed? That's a pretty bare outline for a very major historical figure. It doesn't even discuss his technical military innovations. It doesn't make clear which side Maurice was on, and which Oldenbarnevelt, in the Calvinist/Arminian controversy. It doesn't give any detail on military operations, and it generally doesn't get into too much detail on much of anything. It's nice that there's pictures and succession boxes, but the article is pretty far from comprehensive. john k 03:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I apologize. I somehow got the wrong impression from reading it. I really don't know anything about this figure myself, so guessing at what's been left out is difficult. My mistake. LordAmeth 15:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is not meant as an attack on you, but wouldn't it generally be a wise policy for people who are reasonably familiar with the subject of an article be the ones to review the quality of an article? john k 17:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, there would be a certain logic to that. And I don't take it personally - I understand what you mean. But there is also a logic to having people review it who are historians, fairly well-learned in general, but who are not familiar with the topic, so as to better assess how accessible it is to the average reader. No? Essentially, I'm just trying to help get things assessed, and enjoying reading about subjects outside my usual field of focus. If assessments were restricted only to those who specialize in a particular subject, but not to those who wrote the article in the first place, entire swaths of history would never get assessed, don't you think? LordAmeth 04:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not saying specialists, per se, just people who have some familiarity. I'm certainly not a specialized on early modern Holland. But I know that Maurice is considered one of the leading military figures of his day, and that he made various technical innovations in terms of drill and tactics and such like. I'm not sure of the details of any of this, which is why I haven't improved the article, but I'm aware that there's a lot of room for improvement. I suppose you're right that we can't necessarily wait for somebody who knows the subject to assess it, but perhaps some kind of steps to insure at least basic familiarity (comparison with Britannica article, if one has access, for instance, or for historical figures, with 1911 britannica article.) john k 11:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
