Talk:Battle of Tellicherry/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Canadian Paul 04:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After having gone through the entire article on Michael Jackson's death today, I look forward to reviewing this nice, short article tomorrow. Canadian Paul 04:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and here it is!

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
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:

Excellent again:

In the first paragraph of "Background", aside from the fact that I'm a bit unsure why you've chosen to use colons instead of new sentences, that final sentence is a bit long and could use a split somewhere. Also, you refer to "the second war", which I presume is the Second Anglo-Mysore War, but since it's not capitalized, it might be a bit confusing to the readers, and since it shouldn't be capitalized, you might want to use "the previous conflict" to make it more clear.

Done

Just a suggestion, but "In addition, Résolue was hopelessly outnumbered" under "Battle" seems a bit POVish per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, but that's just my opinion and something to consider, not a required GA change. Same with "Strachan suffering just six killed and 11 wounded in return" later on; at what point, relatively or numerically, can we objectively say that the word "just" is or isn't permissible, particularly when dealing with human lives?

I don't think either case is POV: firstly, in both cases they are comparatives between Resolue and Phoenix rather than absolute values. Secondly, both point are reflections of the phrasing used in the sources (which are not in themselves neutral, but do provide sourcing for e.g. the outnumbered issue).

The lead says that "The Battle of Tellicherry was a controversial naval action...", but I don't really get that feeling from the article itself... what makes it more controversial than any other naval action? The British people or command didn't care, and of course the side that was attacked was going to find it problematic. I'm not sure that the use of the word "controversial" is justified by the article. Also, later in the lead, you write "Angry messages were sent back to France...", but in the article itself it simply says "News of the encounter was conveyed back to France...", which conveys different ideas about the tone of the messages. This difference should be rectified.

Good point, controversial and Angry removed.

Also, in the "Aftermath" section, you provide the opinion of two different scholars as to why there was no greater response from France, but the lead seems to pick one as the definitive explanation, which means that that part of the lead and the section that it is summarizing do not align.

I have adjusted the lead to work with both points in the final paragraph.

Also, I corrected this in the last article of yours that I reviewed, but perhaps I was incorrect: "The French ship carried significantly weaker cannon..." Should that not be cannons? Anyways, to allow for these changes to be made I am placing the article on hold for a period of up to a week. I'm always open to discussion on any of the items, so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 20:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, all points addressed or answered. Regarding "cannon", in British English at least cannon are like fish - the word is the same in singlular as it is in plural (although cannons is also acceptable provided they are used consistently).--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I guess that Canadian English followed American English on the cannon issue, because I'd never heard that before, so apologies for changing it in the other article, I just assumed it was a typo. Anyhow, everything that needed to has been addressed (that's fine about the "hopeless" and "just" issues, as I figured that it was more my personal opinion/interpretation than anything), so I will be passing this as a good article now. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Canadian Paul 06:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the review (Also, on reflection I have reworded the hopelessly bit). Regards --Jackyd101 (talk) 06:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]