Talk:Action of 24 October 1793

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Action of 24 October 1793/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 23:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Jackyd101, I will complete a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments in the meantime. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Jackyd101, I have completed a thorough review and re-review of this article and I find that it meets Good Article criteria. I just have a few comments below that need to be addressed prior to its final passage. Great job, as always! -- Caponer (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lede

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article stands alone as a concise overview and summary of the article. The lede defines the naval engagement, establishes context for the naval engagement, explains why the naval engagement is notable, and summarizes the most important points of the naval engagement.
• The info box is beautifully-formatted and its contents are sourced from internally-cited references.
• The map of important locations in the French Expédition d'Irlande, 1797-1798 is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and is therefore free to use here.
• Why is File:Uranie vs HMS Thames.png not used in this article?

• "Honestly its an ugly image, but someone else has added it to the article and I'm happy for it to remain.

• The lede is well-written, its contents are cited below within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Background

• Per Wikipedia:Inline citation, inline citations should be consolidated at the end of the sentences and paragraphs in numerical order. However, this is merely a suggestion as WP:INTEGRITY may allow the usage of inline citations within a sentence.
• In the third paragraph, should "herfull" actually be written her full?
• This section is otherwise well-written, its contents are cited within the prose, the references are verifiable, and I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Battle

• I recommend a comma after however in the final sentence of the first paragraph.

• I'm not sure that reads well, I'd rather not if that's OK.

• In the second paragraph, "East-North-East" does not require capitalization.
• This section is otherwise well-written, its contents are cited within the prose, the references are verifiable, and I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Aftermath

• An inline citation is needed at the end of the final sentence of the first paragraph.
• As stated above, per Wikipedia:Inline citation, inline citations should be consolidated at the end of the sentences and paragraphs in numerical order. However, this is merely a suggestion as WP:INTEGRITY may allow the usage of inline citations within a sentence.

• Where this occurs this is the result of a specific fact cited in the middle of a sentence.

• This section is otherwise well-written, its contents are cited within the prose, the references are verifiable, and I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.
• The subsequent Notes section is empty and should be deleted accordingly.

Thanks for the review!--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Jackyd101, the privilege was all mine. Upon further review and re-review, I find that you have addressed all my concerns and that this article is ready for passage to GA status! -- Caponer (talk) 13:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)