Talk:Edward Riou/GA1

GA Review

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

The main thing needed to make this a good article is a complete rewrite that replaces passive verbs with active verbs. That's basic to good writing.

I also have a couple of other changes I think make the article better. "He had the misfortune to run <<his ship>> onto an iceberg" << take out “during his voyage” because there’s no other way to run into an iceberg>>

"It briefly appeared that the danger had been avoided, but as she passed by the Guardian struck an underwater projection with a sudden crash.[9] Caught in a sudden gust of wind" the ship reared up and swung about, << get rid of one “sudden” and put a comma before "the ship">>

"The pumps were manned, but could not keep up with the ingress" <<how about “influx”>> "of water, and by midnight there was" <<were>>

"The ships suffered heavy casualties,"

<< replace comma by semi-colon>> 

Patrij (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

While I appreciate the reviewer's comments, I am uncertain whether they have understood the full criteria for reviewing articles as outlined at WP:GAN, where they don't appear to have indicated their intention to carry out a review. Perhaps the reviewer could also utilise Template:GAList to give a better breakdown of their assessment, and make sure the article fits these criteria as well? I will try to look at the points already raised. Benea (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• I am reviewing this article anew for GA. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• "soon found himself serving" - this sounds strangely passive
  • Reworded
• "after his death at Hawaii" - not in Hawaii? or at the port in Hawaii?
  • The preposition 'at' reads fine to me, and the form 'Cook's death at Hawaii' is used in scholarly works ([1]). 'In Hawaii' does not sound right for some reason, while there was no port in Hawaii in Cook's time.
    • OK —Mattisse (Talk) 12:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• "During this period in his life, Riou was described by a seaman aboard the Ganges as 'a strict disciplinarian with a fanatical regard for cleanliness'." Quotes should be directly sourced in the article text immediately after the quote.
  • Fixed.
• "an attempt was made to fother the hull" - unclear what "fother" means
  • It's basically what it says in the article. I've attempted to clarify this a little, but I'm unsure how else to achieve this. Benea (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I will be adding comments as needed. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• OK. It is an excellent article. I did some copy editing which you are free to revert if in error. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Concisely written with a scintillating prose style b (MoS): Follows relevant MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Yes b (focused): Remains focused

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: Neutral

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.: Stable

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Pass

Congratulations!

—Mattisse (Talk) 14:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)