Talk:Action of 3 February 1812

Haiti High‑importance

	Haiti portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Haiti, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Haiti-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HaitiWikipedia:WikiProject HaitiTemplate:WikiProject HaitiHaiti articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Maritime / British / European / Napoleonic era

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

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

Action of 3 February 1812 has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 14, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Action of 3 February 1812/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review of this version:
Pn = paragraph n • Sn = sentence n

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
~~Background, P1, S1: Anything more specific than …for some years…?~~

Changed to initially.

Battle, P1, S2: the comma-separated list of ships beginning with which included the frigate Améthyste… gets confused by the parenthetical statement about Améthyste's rename, also separated with commas. Can this be reworded to avoid the awkward phrasing?

Think I've sorted it, but check.

Battle, P3, S7: the last clause of the sentence seems like it should be a sentence of its own (or separated by a semicolon, at the least).

Not sure wexactly what you are referring to, can you give me a quote?
Sorry about not being more clear, but re-reading the sentence (the last one in that paragraph), it reads fine to me now, so never mind :) — Bellhalla (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath, P1, S3: is there a were missing between jury masts and fitted

Not necessarily, but I've added one to avoid confusion.

Aftermath, P2, S2: I'm not sure I understand the again in American privateers again threatened British… I know there were Americans in Heureuse Réunion's crew, but there hasn't been any other discussion of Americans or American privateers before this…(?)

Again refers to the recurrence of the threat, not the reappearance of the Americans. Changed
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
I delinked the second and third instances of William James (naval historian) from the book references, to avoid the overlinking
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

A few prose issues keep this from passing on first read. I'm sure you'll be able to address all of these within the seven-day hold period. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've make all of the changes, except one that I wasn't clear on. Thanks for the review.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good! Good job. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]