Talk:Action of 24 March 1811/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 19:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Jackyd101, I will complete a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments for me in the meantime. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Jackyd101, I have completed my thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article and I assess that it meets all the criteria for Good Article status. I do, however, have a few comments and questions that should be addressed prior to its passage to Good Article status. Thank you again for your tremendous efforts in completing this article! -- Caponer (talk) 19:31, 22 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.
• Add commas after "By 1811" and "In late 1810" in the first paragraph.
• The English Channel should be mentioned as such consistently throughout the lede and the main prose.
• Otherwise, 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.

Action

• Add comma after "By the autumn of 1810."
• Consider re-wording first sentence of the "Amazone's journey" subsection like so: "Amazone, commanded by Captain Bernard-Louis Rosseau, again attempted to sail to Cherbourg on 23 March 1811 ." Or something like this.
• Also consider including one of the public domain images of HMS Amelia (1796).
• Otherwise, this section 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.

Thanks for the review - done except the "autumn of 1810" one - that sentence doesn't scan with a comma there. --Jackyd101 (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Jackyd101, I've completed my review and re-review of the article following your edits, and find that you have sufficiently addressed my comments and concerns. I hereby pass this article to Good Article status. Congratulations! -- Caponer (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)