Talk:John Marshall (Royal Navy officer, born 1785)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Marshall (Royal Navy officer, born 1785)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 20:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

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 (inline 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 non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
• Spotchecks:

• "By October he had recovered from his malady and on 24 October was appointed to serve on the 74-gun ship of the line HMS Aboukir, which was participating in the Walcheren Expedition and continued to do so until its end in December." is sourced to this source which supports everything but "By October he had recovered from his malady".
• "At the start of 1815 he was rewarded by the governments of Russia and Sweden and created a Knight of the Order of St. George and Knight of the Order of the Sword respectively." is sourced to the above source which supports the information
• "Not being examined himself, Marshall provided testimonies for the crew which assisted in them being honourably acquitted of blame" is sourced to this source which supports the information
• "He lived by this time at Pen-y-Garthen, in Denbighshire, Wales" is sourced to [ this source p. 753] which supports the information
• "Having assisted in bombarding the town from range with a series of guns landed from Royal Navy vessels, Marshall attacked the fortress guarding Glückstadt with his squadron on 26 December" is sourced to this source p. 390-392 which supports the information

• References:

• What makes https://britanniasdragon.com/2014/11/13/the-milford-haven-lazarette-ships/ a reliable source?

• Written by the published naval historian J. D. Davies. I know the information is also available in John Booker's Maritime Quarantine: The British Experience, c.1650–1900 but I haven't been able to find access to this without paying an arm and a leg for it.

• Likewise http://www.ageofnelson.org/MichaelPhillips/info.php?ref=2027?

• Nothing really. This is an old article of mine, I don't use that source anymore. I've replaced with Marshall.

• Lead:

• "released in a cartel, he was instead " cartel links to "prisoner exchange" why not just use "prisoner exchange" here?

• Done.

• "capture of Glückstadt, which" ... can we say where Gluckstadt is so the reader doesn't have to click off to the article?

• Noted that his squadron was in the North Sea.

• "served on shore as commander of at first lazarettos at Milford Haven and then" suggest "served on shore first as commander of lazarettos at Milford Haven and then"

• Done.

• "In 1832 he was knighted and appointed" but we already said he was knighted by Russia and Sweden... who knighted him here?

• Added link for the actual knighthood.

• Early career:

• Suggest just removing "descended from an ancient family" as the state of genealogical knowledge at the time of the source was.. abyssmal and thus somewhat suspect. Also, as a fact this is something that can be said to apply to anyone - we all descended from "ancient families" - it's just that some of us can trace it to specific families. However, since we don't say what this supposed ancient family is for this subject, it's just a useless bit of junk.

• Agreed, removed.

• link/explanation of "as a first-class volunteer"?

• Added an explanation. Eventually I'll get frustrated enough to create the article myself!

• Command:

• "Not being examined himself, Marshall provided testimonies for the crew which assisted them being honourably acquitted of blame" this is .. pompous-sounding? Can we simplify a bit? Maybe "Marshall's testimony at the court martial helped acquit the crew."

• Changed. Kept the bit about him not being examined himself because I think it's otherwise not obvious.

• Likewise "Having been unable to take up command of Procris due to his period of captivity" is just plain wordy - suggest something like "Having lost command of Procris because of his captivity, Marshall was given command"

• Done.

• "Having assisted in bombarding the town from range with a series of guns landed from Royal Navy vessels, Marshall attacked the fortress guarding Glückstadt with his squadron on 26 December." Suggest simply saying "After helping the bombardment of Gluckstadt, Marshall and his squadron attacked the fortress guarding the town on 26 December."

• Done.

• "Marshall was then sent by Farquhar to Kiel so that their actions and captures could be correctly recorded and dealt with" suggest something simpler like "Marshall was then sent by Farquhar to Kiel to deal with the seized ships."

• Done. If you haven't already guessed, my language gets more flowery the longer I spend reading these 19th C sources!

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: Hi, thank you for the review and the copyedit. I have responded above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Changes look good, passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)