Jump to content

Talk:HMS Aigle (1801)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 14:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Will come back shortly. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Section 1; para 1;
  • Section 1; para 2; Link gun deck, quarter deck, forecastle on first mention
    Done. --Ykraps (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section 2; para 1;
    • Aigle was first commissioned for the English Channel, what do you mean by commissioned for the English Channel, was it used to patrol of the channel or what, mention that clearly and also remove "first", no need of that.
      Commissioned means, made ready for service. I've linked to an article on ship commissioning, although commissioning is commissioning irrespective of whether it's a ship or anything else. As to what she was doing in The Channel, the short answer is yes, she was patrolling it. Orders were generally unspecific and captains were given a lot of leeway, because they had to react quickly to changing events. Before the invention of radio, communication between fleets and the Admiralty, or even individual ships, was extremely difficult; it might be months before new orders were received and by then they might well be out of date. This was one of the things Napoleon failed to understand.--Ykraps (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      The article says she was patrolling The Channel, by the way.--Ykraps (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who is George Wolfe, mention his position.
      Done. --Ykraps (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • put ashore in Portland -> went ashore in Portland
      Is there something you don't like about "put ashore"? It's a fairly standard phrase in English [[1]] and while "went ashore" wouldn't be incorrect, "put ashore" is the more common term, particularly when the parties were rowed ashore in boats, as indeed they were in this case. --Ykraps (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • In what became known locally as the Easton Massacre, is a bit awkward and also confusion, reword.
      I've removed the word "locally" because it was actually quite widely known as the Eastern Massacre, and it makes the sentence less awkward.--Ykraps (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section 2; para 2; re-floating the stranded ships so Wolfe ordered them destroyed -> re-floating the stranded ships, Wolfe ordered them to be destroyed\
    Would you mind looking at this again? Altering the sentence as you suggest will make it read, "The heavy swell prevented the British from re-floating the stranded ships, Wolfe ordered them to be destroyed". I don't think that makes sense. I could perhaps say something like, "Unable to re-float the stranded ships due to the heavy swell; Wolfe ordered them to be destroyed". --Ykraps (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section 2; para 4;
    • Temporary command was given to Henry Sturt -> Henry Sturt was made the commander of the ship temporarily, can you explain why this was done? Why the happened to the previous commander Wolfe?
      It could've been for a number of reasons but unfortunately the source doesn't reveal why.--Ykraps (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • was back in charge -> retook charge
      He didn't take charge on that day, he was back in charge by the time that engagement took place; having previously taken back command on an undisclosed date. I have changed the wording slightly to make this clearer.--Ykraps (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vice-admiral, capitalize the first "a" in admiral and also remove "-"
      Hyphenating vice-admiral is an English variation. See here [[2]] for example.--Ykraps (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mention the position of Admiral Cornwallis then and also mention his full name.
      Done.--Ykraps (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section 2; para 5;
    • Two Chasse-marées, which country's and why?
      The source doesn't say. It refers to them as enemy vessels but that doesn't help much.--Ykraps (talk) 13:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • in a cutting-out expedition, expedition to where?
      I'm not sure if I understand the question. A cutting-out expedition (linked in the article) is a boat action, so the expedition is from Aigle to the enemy ship. If you're asking where the action took place, again, the sources don't say but it was probably in The Channel.--Ykraps (talk) 07:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mention details about Pallas and Gibraltar, their nation and type.
      I've added number of guns as I think their nationality is implied by being in the same squadron. If anyone is in doubt, they can click the links.--Ykraps (talk) 07:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Link schooner
      Done.--Ykraps (talk) 07:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section 2.1;
    • Mention details about Italienne and Sirene, their nation?
      I've added the nationality as you suggest. I've already said they were frigates of 40 and 38 guns; is there more information you're expecting?--Ykraps (talk) 08:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • re-supplied -> resupplied, south-east -> southeast
      Resupplied appears to be correct but compass points are definitely hyphenated in British English.--Ykraps (talk) 08:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • A comma (,) after "sought the shelter of Groix' batteries"
      Done.--Ykraps (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As it was now dark, remove "now"
      I'm not sure about that. I think the "now" is needed to indicate that it wasn't dark previously; given that, at that latitude in March, one might reasonably expect it to be.--Ykraps (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • chasing merchantmen, which country's?
      Different countries'; French, Spanish, Dutch, American. The Royal Navy would not only take enemy vessels but vessels of any nation if they were thought to be trading with the enemy.--Ykraps (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

‎Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, Are you planning on coming back to this? Best regards--Ykraps (talk) 10:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HMS_Aigle_(1801)/GA1&oldid=1248599088"