Talk:Action of 9 September 1796

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Action of 9 September 1796 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Action of 9 September 1796 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.

Action of 9 September 1796 is part of the East Indies theatre of the French Revolutionary Wars series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 17, 2015	Good article nominee	Listed
January 28, 2018	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 9, 2023, and September 9, 2024.

Current status: Good article

British Empire

	British Empire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire 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.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Africa: Mauritius Low‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Mauritius.

Military history: Maritime / British / European / French / 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
	French military history task force
	Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

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.

Rewrite

Unless anyone minds, I'm planning a quick tidy up of this article over the next few days, similar to my recent work at Battle of Ile Ronde. Let me know if you have any comments or questions. Best--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have tided and sourced the article - I've also corrected a few things: it was fought on 9 September, not 8 September and off Sumatra, not Mauritius, hence the new title - the old history can be seen at Action of 8 September 1796. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Action of 9 September 1796/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk · contribs) 11:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Decent work there like normal, but I have a few comments.

Thanks for this review. I have some questions. Also, has this passed? The last line seems to suggest you passed it.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

Fix dashes using the script

What script?--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CharInsert. It is on by default. You can turn it on in your preferences

It is unecessary to cites like this The M4 Sherman served in WWII.^[1] It later served in the Korean War.^[1]

I think I've only done this when there is only one ref in the paragraph, in which case I've spaced them out to make it clear the whole paragraph is sourced.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Space between the "p" and number in the cites

Is this really necessary? I thought it was up to editor preference?--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DAB link to broadside — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk • contribs) 11:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

You only need one kind of identifier for the references, not two.

I don't know what this means.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It means that you don't need both oclcs and isbns for your refs.

Please and oclcs or isbns for two of the sources

I don't know what an OCLC is or where to find it. The two references without ISBNS were published before ISBNS were invented.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OCLC numbers are found on www.worldcat.org. There are used for identifing refs that were mad before isbns were invented.

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 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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Passing, well done (I have finished two issues on my own).--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ ^a ^b Zaloga, p. 20.

[Z20-1] Zaloga, p. 20.

[1]