Talk:Raid on Genoa/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 13:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jackyd101, I will complete a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments for me in the meantime. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jackyd101, I have completed my review of this article and I find that it easily meets the criteria for Good Article status. I do, however, have a few comments and questions that should be addressed prior to its passage to Good Article status. Thank you again for all your hard work on this article! -- Caponer (talk) 14:14, 22 February 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 stands alone as a concise overview and summary of the article. The lede defines the raid, establishes context for the raid, explains why the raid is notable, and summarizes the most important points of the raid.
The Massacre de l'equipage de la Modeste dans le Port de Genes image is released into the public domain and is therefore acceptable for use here.
The template is beautifully formatted and its content is cited within the article's prose.
The lede is well-written, its contents are cited below within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no other comments or suggestions for this section.

Background

You've done a brilliant job of setting the scene for the raid with your narrative of the conflict's origins.
Consider adding a public domain image of Samuel Hood, 1st Viscount Hood in this section.
Since there is only one subsection in this section, consider removing the subsection header.
Otherwise, this section is well-written, its contents are cited below within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no other comments or suggestions for this section.

Raid

Consider adding a public domain image of John Gell (Royal Navy officer), HMS St George (1785), Robert Mann (Royal Navy officer), HMS Captain (1787), or to this section for added aesthetics.
In the La Spezia subsection, consider adding a comma after "Six days after the capture of Modeste"
Add AM to 08:00, even though you've mentioned it is morning.
Otherwise, this section is well-written, its contents are cited below within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no other comments or suggestions for this section.

Aftermath

In the final sentence of the first paragraph, consider spelling out 150 as One hundred and fifty or One hundred fifty, as it is the start of the sentence. I know it looks strange. To get around this, you could reword this sentence to read "The blaze resulted in the deaths of the 150 of the Royalist crew."
Add comma following "On 17 December"
Otherwise, this section is well-written, its contents are cited below within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no other comments or suggestions for this section.

Thanks for a very detailed review. I've made the grammatical edits and added an image. The only thing I haven't done is as the am to 08:00 - this is a 24 hour time (8 in the evening would be 20:00) and as you've said I mentioned that it was morning. Hope that's not a problem.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jackyd101, thank you for your speedy responses to each of my above comments and questions. I've reviewed and re-reviewed the article, and I hereby pass it to Good Article status. Thank you again for all your great work on this article, and congratulations on a job well done! -- Caponer (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]