Talk:John Walter Roberts/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 06:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I will take a look at this one, comments to follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 06:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]Lead
- served as a junior officer in the English Channel...: suggest "served as a junior officer on ships in the"
- Added.
- captured the pirate Zaragozana.: suggest "captured the pirate ship Zaragozana." I was wondering who Zaragozana was and why his name was italicised until I clicked on the link!
- Added.
Military career
Junior officer
- to India to take up post as...: suggest "to India to take up his post as"
- Added.
- serving with Capel off: who/what is Capel? or is Endymion meant? (Doing spot checks on sourcing I see that Capel was commander of Endymion, so that needs to be added for antecedence)
- Remnant of a previous rendition in which I named most of the commanders of the ships Roberts served in. Removed for consistency.
- I can't recall if it is a thing for you or not, but the cites for the final paragraph are in reverse order
- Switched.
Command
- Having walked inland about 50 miles (80 km) by 22 February, ... and chose to return to Shearwater, arriving back on the following day.: can I have a fact check on this; as I read this, I make the "following day" 23 Feb) so this means they walked 80km in a day? Also delete the italicised 'on'
- Double checked, and this should read 23 February: "Feb. 23rd. We still travelled forward, being now afraid to stop lest we should he affected with cramp. At daylight we arrived on the seacoast. In a few hours after we came in sight of the ship, and arrived on board about seven a.m. quite knocked up, having travelled these last twenty-four hours, with scarcely any rest, upwards of fifty miles."
- The lead mentions a promotion to post-captain, but that is not mentioned here. The links for this rank and captain are distinct from each other, so should this distinction be carried through here?
- Changed.
Personal
- The couple went on to have children together.: is there a missing number there?
- Nope! Source only says "they had issue".
Other stuff
- Sources look reliable albeit some quite dated
- Spot checks of sources (O'Byrne) (Marshall 1830)
- No dupe links
- Image tags OK
That's my comments done for now. Zawed (talk) 09:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Zawed: Hi, thanks for reviewing this. My comments are above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- "I'm happy with this, passing as GA as I believe that the article meets the necessary criteria. Zawed (talk) 08:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)