Talk:Invasion of Ceylon/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 16:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jackyd101, I will engage in another thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done except the Batavian link (I just prefered it the other way) and once of the commas. Once again, thankyou very much for the review!--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jackyd101, thank you once again for addressing my comments and suggestions in a thorough and timely manner. Congratulations on another job well done! I hereby pass this article to Good Article status. -- West Virginian (talk) 23:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Jackyd101, since you had so many wonderful and well-written articles nominated, I couldn't help but review one more. This article also meets the criteria for Good Article status. As before, I only had a few minor suggestions and comments that should be addressed prior to its formal passage to Good Article status. Thank you for all your great work on this article, and your many others! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): 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 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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Lede

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the Invasion of Ceylon in 1795, establishes the invasion's necessary context, and explains why the invasion is otherwise notable.
The info box for the invasion is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
The image of the map of Dutch Ceylon has been released into the public domain and is therefore suitable for inclusion in this article.
I would suggest wiki-linking Batavian to Batavian Republic, and then de-link the mention of the Batavian Republic below it.
The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Background

When mentioning Île de France I would include following that it is present-day Mauritius.
To encapsulate the smaller settlements, perhaps say factories AND settlements.
This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Planning

I wonder if the first paragraph would start out better with an "upon" versus "on." This is merely a suggestion and either way will do.
You could de-link Colombo in the second paragraph as it is already wiki-linked above in the "Background" section.
This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Siege of Trincomalee

In the second sentence of the first paragraph, is the "were" necessary between troops and landed?
While this has nothing to do with the article, you may want to consider creating a stub for Fort Oostenberg. Just an aside.
This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Fall of Colombo

In the first sentence, I'd add a comma in the natural pause following "In September 1795"
And a comma is suggested after "In January 1796"
And after "In February 1796" in the second paragraph. Again, these are merely suggestions and are not deal breakers for passage to Good Article status.
This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.