Talk:Edward Nicolls/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 22:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I will post a review for this article sometime today or tomorrow. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/suggestions

G'day, this is an impressive article which I believe is close to GA status. I have a few comments/suggestions for further improvements that I'd like to discuss, though. Upon conclusion of the GA review, I suggest that you might consider taking it through the Military History project's A-class review process, as this would help set you up if you are considering taking it to FAC. If you disagree with any of my comments, please let me know. I'm always happy to discuss. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only really interested in getting it to GA; it's broad in coverage as required for GA, but I'm not completely sure it's comprehensive as required for FAC… —innotata 03:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the award of the Naval General Service Medal appears in the infobox but is not mentioned in the text, or referenced. If possible, please either add a citation to the infobox, or add a mention the text with a reference;

He probably received it, but can't find it in the references. Removed it. —innotata 04:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

please wikilink terms like "brig" which may be unfamiliar to some readers;

Linked this one and a few others… —innotata 20:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"he described comprised 2 sloops and 2 sixth-rates" --> per MOSNUM, this should probably be "he described comprised two sloops and two sixth-rates..."

Done. —innotata 03:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"comprised 3 cannon and 12 Royal Marine gunners" --> "comprised three cannon and twelve Royal Marine gunners..."

Done. —innotata 03:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

inconsistent capitalisation: "...and blacks who had" v. "Black Allies"

Fixed. —innotata 03:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

capitalisation: "...whilst the "Battalion"..." --> should be "...whilst the "battalion"..." as in this case it is a common noun

It's a quote. —innotata 03:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, yes however as per the guidance in WP:MOSQUOTE we adjust caps in these instances to ensure typographic conformity. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure how broadly that applies, but it isn't a problem with a one-word quote I guess. Done. —innotata 20:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Nicolls joined General Pakenham's force" --> please include Pakenham's first name if known and wikilink if possible

Done. —innotata 03:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

be careful of overlink. The duplicate link checker tool identifies a few examples of possibly overlinked terms: Corps of Colonial Marines, Andrew Jackson, and Royal Navy

Fixed these ones —innotata 03:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

be careful of date presentation. Per the MOS date ranges like "1810–1891" should be presented as "1810–91";

No, that is not done for lifespans. —innotata 03:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point, I stand corrected. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

encouraging 'thieves' and 'murderers'. --> I believe that the MOS prefers double quotes in this instance. e.g. encouraging "thieves" and "murderers"... (see MOS:QUOTEMARKS)

Done —innotata 03:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"second sword of honour by Britain's Patriotic Fund..." --> when did he receive the first? It doesn't seem to have been mentioned...

He received a sword of honour from another group earlier, so removed 'second'. —innotata 04:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

be careful regarding the over capitalisation of ranks. As per WP:MILTERMS ranks should only be capitalised when used as a title. For instance, "Major Edward Nicolls", but "Edward Nicolls was a major". For instance, in the article: "retired from the Royal Marines with the rank of a Lieutenant Colonel" should be "retired from the Royal Marines with the rank of a lieutenant colonel".

Fixed, I think. —innotata 20:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 38 "Indian Chiefs 1" --> can more details be added such as publisher, author, accessdate etc?

Done. —innotata 03:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

access dates should probably be added to the various web links (for instance Reference # 61 "Captain Archibald...")

Added them. —innotata 20:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it appears that there is a typo in the following quote: "...gade), This honour..." (the capitalisation of "This")

The quote had been amended to add the comment on Thornton's brigade, which was unnecessary, so I removed it. —innotata 03:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest including the information that is currently in the lead about the opinions of Bathurst and Smith of Nicolls, be included somewhere in the body of the article. This might work as a couple of short sentences in the later life section after the part mentioning his death;

Done —innotata 20:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the Nicolas work doesn't appear to have been specifically cited - I suggest adding an inline citation to it, or placing it in a Further reading section

Inline citation added. —innotata 20:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

is there an OCLC number that could be added for the James , Marshall, Latour, and Nicolas works? These can sometimes be found through Worldcat.org [1]

I think different volumes of James have different numbers. Added the rest. —innotata 04:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

is there an ISBN that could be added for the Mosley work? AustralianRupert (talk) 22:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —innotata 20:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, your changes look good. Passing now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]