Talk:Action of 18 September 1810/GA1

GA Review

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

I will be happy to review this article for GA status. H1nkles (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article. H1nkles (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, 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:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it 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 (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Regarding Lead

The lead is to be a brief summary of the article's main points per WP:LEAD. In my opinion your second paragraph in the lead goes into detail covered in the article. It restates in detail what you already say in the first paragraph. I would instead devote the second paragraph to the immediate and longterm repercussions of the battle and its significance in the greater Napoleonic conflict. This is covered in the article but not really mentioned much in the lead.
Picture, tables and prose are all excellent. H1nkles (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Background

Quote, "Rowley could not hope to find and defeat..." "Could not hope to..." is unencyclopedic, consider changing.
"Notoriously unpopular..." is weasily this should be changed unless it can be explained and even then it should be reworded. H1nkles (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This statement, "In his haste to depart, Gordon had been unable to obtain any Royal Marines, whose place was taken by 100 men of the 69th Regiment and the 86th Regiment from the Madras garrison." should have a reference. H1nkles (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quote, "Ceylon was an odd ship, being constructed by the Honourable East India Company (HEIC) in Bombay as an East Indiaman merchant ship designed to operate as a 32–gun frigate during wartime." Consider the use of "odd" in this context. Consider using "unusual" or "not a ship of the line". It's a ticky tack issue but the word "odd" in this article doesn't have an encyclopedic feel to it. H1nkles (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Pursuit

Quote, "As night fell, Gordon shortened sail to meet Vénus (which had outdistanced Victor), but the French flagship also slowed to allow the corvette to catch up and so Gordon increased sail once more, leading Hamelin southwest towards Île Bourbon." I recommend splitting this sentence into two. It is a runon sentence and doesn't flow well.
Shorten and increasing sail are WP:Jargon and should be explained perhaps by saying, "Gordon, wishing to meet Vénus (which had outdistanced Victor) slowed by shortening her sail." Minor copy edits will help to improve and clarify this for the novice seaman readers. H1nkles (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Battle

Quote, "The French corvette had been struggling to catch up during the night, and arrived as dawn approached to see the flagship in a damaged state and the British vessel even more stricken." The Corvette didn't "see" the flagship. The sentence as a whole needs to be reworded or broken into two sentences.
The rest of this section is well-written and concise. H1nkles (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Aftermath

Is there a Wikipedia article on the invasion of Île de France? If so it should be linked here. Note: I see it wikilinked in the lead. If you are rewording the lead per recommendations above do not forget to maintain the link. H1nkles (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall comments

The article is well-written, a few punctuation errors, comma use mainly that I over look for a GAC. Prose is good. Look at a couple of unencyclopedic and weasel words/phrases.
Picture is good and meets WP:IMAGE requirements.
Sources check, as best as I can and formatting is good. You use varied sources from differing points of view.
POV is good, no bias as I can see.
Lead needs work, make it less specific and add more about the aftermath.
Work on the jargon found in the Pursuit section.
Make sure you reference the statement in Background section on numbers of men and the regiments they came from.
The article is very close. A few tweaks here and there and it will be ready. I will give until 1/15/2009 for edits to be made unless more time is needed. At that point I will review for GA determination. H1nkles (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I think I have addressed all of the above. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The one think I am unsure about is the lead: what exactly is missing and what it too detailed? I think its quite a good summary.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your fixes, If you feel it is sufficient I will proceed with my final review. After rereading the Lead it appears to be ok, I'll strike my previous statements except to say that it would be good to see something about the immediate and long term consequences of the battle. You cover this in the article but it isn't mentioned in the lead. H1nkles (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hae expanded the lead, is there anything else that needs addressing?--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is improved and my suggestions were implemented. I made some minor copy edits as a read through the article again. I will pass article as GA, congratulations. H1nkles (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]