Talk:William Cathcart (Royal Navy officer)

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Military history: Biography / Maritime / British / European / Napoleonic era C‑class

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

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

Untitled

I really like the idea for your article because it is unique and from a very interesting period of history. However there are a few areas of your article that could use a little improvement, it would be interesting to know the reasons behind his enrolment in the navy as well was the reasons for his promotions and why some of them were so quick. If you could write about Cathcart’s role in significant events or other battles, it would give readers of your article a vaster understanding of Cathcart’s significance to British naval history. A nice thing you could add to give your article zazz is to tell the age William was during significant events in his career because some people might not recognise how young he actually was. One last criticism is that you have a “n” instead of and “h” in the fourth last paragraph of your background. I like that you gave the relation between Cathcart and Lord Nelson and gave the background to the war that he was fighting in. over all I enjoyed reading your article and found you information to be valid and enlightening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnrdc (talk • contribs) 00:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

This article is well written and quite comprehensive. It is laid out well, with a strong introduction and a clear structure that makes for easy access of information. I found the information to be very interesting and the introduction and information about his death to be excellent and informative. Perhaps more explanation and introduction around the quotes made in the section labelled: Cathcart’s Role in the Raids on Boulogne. While the quotes are excellent and very insightful, they may be better conveyed with a bit more explanation. Another helpful addition to the article may be further exploits of William Cathcart besides those in the Raids on Boulogne. It may be that there is not much information on this, or any for that matter, but if there is, it would certainly be interesting to hear more of Cathcart’s career and accomplishments. He certainly had a very interesting life - and quite tragic with his early death is such a promising career. One other change that might add clarity to a section of the article would be to add “Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars” as part of the heading “Background”. This would simply clarify the fact that the section speaks about the background of the political and military developments rather than about Cathcart himself, as might be assumed otherwise. Overall the article is excellent, very informative and neutral in it’s depiction of facts and occurrences. It was well articulated and a pleasure to read.

Halfpak (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]