Talk:Battle of the Chesapeake/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
One awkward tag to resolve.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
The explanation of why Hood did not close isn't clear as is the explanation as to why Graves allowed the French center to close. One why tag to resolve.

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

In re why the Diademe was ill-prepared: Larrabee quotes a primary source: "The Diademe was utterly unable to keep up the battle, having only four thirty-six-pounders and nine eighteen-pounders fit for use ..." There is no indication as to whether this is due to crew shortages or some other reason. Other sources tend to cover the damage she sustained, and not her lack of preparedness. I can either leave it the way it is, quote the source directly, or remove the clause. Preference? Magic♪piano 12:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think quoting the source is best. Perhaps some specialist in French ships of the line will come along and fill in the reason some time in the future.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made edits to address all the above issues; let me know if they haven't sufficiently improved clarity... Magic♪piano 14:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]