Talk:John Jervis, 1st Earl of St Vincent/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Magic♪piano 20:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First round review

A few preliminary items:

Article does not adhere to WP:MOSQUOTE: quotations should not be italic (unless so in original), and quote marks should be uniformly straight (", not “”).
Older public-domain sources that are available online (e.g. through Google Books or Gutenberg) should include links to such resources. They should also include OCLC numbers (these can be retrieved by looking the works up at worldcat.org).
There are links to anachronistic or incorrect political entities. Two that I spotted are Canada ( which did not exist in his lifetime) and Quebec (referring to Quebec City). These should be instead reference (with appropriate explanatory language if needed) contemporary entities (in the two cases I saw the entities in question are actually Canada, New France and Quebec City).
There is a higher-quality color version of File:A View of the taking of Quebec Sept 13th 1759.jpg at the NMM. The currently asserted copyright of this image is also incorrect: the NMM asserts more restrictive copyrights over reproductions of its images than the one claimed. Copyright of old paintings and drawings from the NMM should be {{PD-art}}, which contains a suitable disclaimer against the NMM's copyright assertion.
File:Gibraltar en 1782 ravitaille par lord Howe.jpg (should that be File:Howe's relief of gibraltar.jpg?), File:Capture of Fort Louis, Martinique, 1794.jpg, File:John Bull peeping into Brest.jpg, File:Earl st vincent in old age.jpg should also be PD-art. (If these images are available online, e.g. through NMM's site, this should be linked on the image page.)

More to come, possibly tomorrow. Magic♪piano 02:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions

I've changed all the quotes.
I'm working on the url links to the older books.
Also working on OCLC nos.
Changed the references to Canada and Quebec.
Am awful with commons and pictures. I don't really know how to do it. Can you point me toward someone who might be willing to sort out those pictures correctly. Obviously I don't want to breach copyright and the folks over at the NMM are always so nice and I don't want to upset them either.
- The file pages on Commons that contain the metadata and licensing are editable, just like WP pages -- you just have to open them, change the license template, and a link to the image's page at NMM in the source field. See e.g. File:HoratioNelson1.jpg for a somewhat over-the-top example (you only really need to link the catalogue page). Magic♪piano 15:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Corneredmouse (talk) 10:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've editted File:Howe's relief of gibraltar.jpg Is this ok? Thanks, Corneredmouse (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that looks fine. Magic♪piano 20:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second round review

WP:MOSCAPS -- there are a number of things that are unnecessarily capitalized. Military titles are generally not capitalized unless preceding a holder's name -- thus "Admiral" in the first sentence ("was an Admiral") of the lead should not be capitalized. "Block Making Machinery" is also not a formal name. These sorts of errors appear throughout; please check the whole article.
I would add the year in which the Battle of Cape Saint Vincent occurred to the lead.
There are a number of WP articles for actions that are mentioned here; I added some links, there are probably more.
There are places where "seaman" is used when the plural is clearly intended.
As Benea mentions on talk page: Further honours and Legacy should written as proper prose sections; the semi-list form they're in is particularly jarring.
The section on the battle of cape st. vincent has four images bunched close; the preceding and following sections have none. These images can be better distributed.
There are some minor copyedits needed; rather than list them, I'll just fix them. If more serious prose issues turn up in doing so, I'll list them here.

-- Magic♪piano 00:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional items that cropped up during copyediting:

You should apply WP:ENDASH to date ranges and page ranges in citations
The list of reports generated by the inquiry commissioned should be formatted using numbered list formatting (Help:List)
Earl of Portsmouth in "Powers to promote" links to the article about the title; it should link to the appropriate titleholder
Some external web references do not have access dates; these should be converted to {{cite web}} or similar format
If the section labelled "External links" contains things used as references, they should include access dates and be formatted a la {{cite web}}; if they are not used as references, they shouldn't be under the level-2 (==) "References" heading. (Per WP:LAYOUT, "External links" should be a level-2 heading containing things not used as references.)

I'll hold the review until you have time to deal with them. Magic♪piano 02:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warts

You're right about a too positive attitude. I felt that jervis had been somewhat maligned as a result of the o'brian books and championed him. Possibly too much. Other points like the style if prose are also something I'm happy to work on before you either award or reject GA status. I'm a little busy right now though as my son was born this morning. I shall take a stab at some further edits next week. Cheers, Corneredmouse (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've not read the O'Brian books (I know of the them), so I'm not going to be colored them. I'm merely ruminating on the nature of the sources used. Benea is more of a naval guy than I am, and obviously more knowledgeable in the specific time. (I actually picked this to review because I believe Jervis may have met one of my pet subjects, Benedict Arnold, at Guadeloupe in 1794.) Magic♪piano 21:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the addition to your family. I don't think there's anything seriously wrong beyond what I've listed above (and pending my copyedit of minor things). I'll hold the review open until you can deal with them. Magic♪piano 21:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You left a message on my talk page saying you finished with the edits here; I see that a number of your edits left dangling uncited sentences. Are you intending to do more citation work? Magic♪piano 02:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may have been somewhat premature and sleep deprived. I forgot I still need to do citeweb on the External links. I will also take a look at the sentences and see if I can get appropriate citations for them. Corneredmouse (talk) 09:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood; take your time. Magic♪piano 17:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Status

I'd like to wind this review down. I fixed a few minor outstanding issues, but there some bare URL citations, and at least one bare-linked URL in the text that ought to be converted to {{cite web}} (or in the case of at least one of the cites, {{cite book}}). Can these be fixed soon? Magic♪piano 13:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC) I think I've done them all now. You may as well close out the review. I'm finding it harder and harder to get things done on wikipedia and as pleased as I am with this article I'm aware that it needs a finessing that I don't have the skill or the time to accomplish. I guess you'll just have to mark my work now and I'll accept whatever grade I get. Thanks for all the copyedit, help, opinion, and general goodwill and effort you've put in. It has enriched my wikipedia experience and taught me an awful lot. I'm grateful and I hope that we cross paths again. Should you ever need help on a project, let me know and if I can, I will. All the best, Ian Corneredmouse (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, looks good now; I'll pass it. Best of luck! Magic♪piano 15:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]